date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2021/07/07
| 3,618
| 15,260
|
<issue_start>username_0: I don't know how to behave as a new PhD student towards the other people in my group. I started my PhD at the begining of Covid in February 2020.
One week after I met the people in our group, our research center was closed. During the last year, only me and my advisor came to the research center. Others visited from time to time.
Now, restrictions were lifted and the other members of the group started to arrive. We know each other, but nobody invites me to anything, even lunch. Besides, my room is in another corridor and there is noone from our group on that side, it's just me. I can't see if the rest of the group is leaving for lunch or not. I feel so excluded and I don't know what should I do. I'm like a complete stranger. They don't have to like me, but I don't understand why they act like that.
There will be group meetings which I don't want to attend. Would it be bad to say to my advisor that 'I do not want to attend the meetings because no one but you has talked with me until now' ?
I want to add this, to be more extrovert, I did my best to bring cake and invite others for coffee.<issue_comment>username_1: I think it would be a mistake to miss such a meeting. You will be isolating yourself, adding to the problem. Go there, even if you only listen the first time.
Perhaps you have an option to switch offices. Ask.
Perhaps there is a coffee room in which people can gather. Go there. Take your work with you in case no one shows up. Introduce yourself when they do. Try small talk. Try asking about their research.
If you are on good terms with your advisor, make the issue known to them. Perhaps they can make a few introductions.
If you meet anyone, let them know you'd like a knock on the door if they go out to lunch. Make small steps lead to bigger ones.
When I was a doctoral student, one of us organized sport activities (pick-up baseball) and we got to meet and interact with each other, even outside our small research groups.
It has been a hard time for everyone and lots of people have lost social skills, so be aware of that.
But go to every meeting that is offered.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I believe that this is an unusual situation for all involved - for your and your colleagues. Especially with Covid restrictions, lockdown, etc. it was probably difficult for both parties to get to know each other. If your colleagues had already formed a closer peer-group before the pandemic, it is understandable that they have a stronger bond with each other as they have with you for the time being. With the unusual work situation, it may also not be easy for them to commit to getting in touch with you to a greater extent.
As long as your colleagues ar not hostile towards you, I would encourage you to continue with open-mindedness and friedlyness for the time being and hope that your situation will improve as the general work situation normalizes.
Under no circumstances sould you stay away from general meetings, if your colleagues are not hostile towards you. These are, in my opinion, one of your best chances to get in touch with them on a professional level.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: First, it's worth mentioning that socializing with your lab is not a requirement for finishing the PhD. While the situation is not ideal, your advisor may not see it as a problem for your studies.
It sounds like you're expecting the group to invite you to gatherings. Since they haven't, it's natural to assume that they may be satisfied with the current social situation, and may not be motivated to change it themselves. Since you are dissatisfied, what have you done to change the current situation? Have you invited them to lunch?
Going back to my first point though: if your lab isn't very social or doesn't want to include you, your best option may be to make friends elsewhere.
>
> There will be meeting, I don't want to attend the group meeting, would it be bad to say to my advisor that 'I do not want to attend the meetings because no one but you has talked with me until now' ?
>
>
>
This is probably counterproductive. Other students are more likely to include you if they interact with you regularly. Also, group meetings are usually part of PhD studies, not a social gathering.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Sometimes it is hard to enter an established group of people. And I think Covid didn't help, maybe your other group members have to get adjusted to being back at work, and don't really feel like socializing - especially since many of us have had a definite lack of socializing during the last 18 months and might be a bit rusty.
As others have already said, not attending group meetings is counterproductive, because if you make yourself scarce, it will make others notice you less and will not alleviate your situation.
Instead, maybe you could ask your supervisor if you could switch rooms, so that you are physically closer to the others. If that is not possible, try approaching them and telling them explicitely that you would very much like to go to lunch with them, and that they should tell you when they leave so that you can join them. Using a messaging system like MS Teams or whatever you might use already in your group will make communication easier even if located in other parts of the building.
Maybe even bring up your feeling lonely, having moved to another country just as the pandemic hit and not having had much chance to meet and get to know other people. It might feel uncomfortable to approach them, but more likely than not they don't exclude you because they don't like you, but they might not be aware that you feel this way and might just be overwhelmed by the situation over the last year.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: (German here, with some working experience at an Italian university long before covid)
* First of all, like the other answers say, do attend those meetings!
* Since your advisor is the one you know best, and since they are your advisor, I'd talk to them about the group taking you along to lunch, and about the possibility to get a place where the group is.
(when I started in Italy, I got the "status" of having my own office - not good to get acquainted with people. I changed it to share an office with a colleague when the possibility offered. But this is something you need to say, people may be thinking they do you a favor by giving you a work place that is more calm. But all in all, even as a German I think it is not nice to put someone new far away from the group.)
As a side thought: "There will be group meetings which I don't want to attend." Since you are in a stage of loneliness where you withdraw yourself, I see a certain risk that people may be misunderstanding you thinking you *want* to stay for yourself.
Also, I'd expect your advisor to introduce you to the others in a fashion that should open the possibility to collaborate with at least some of them. The seminar may be important in that respect as well.
* People just returning to the institute may be quite busy/stressed because they try to catch up doing lots of things they had to postpone while they couldn't come.
* People still have quite different levels of stress/anxiety related to the whole Covid situation. This will make them less able than usual to socialize.
* Being invited to activities outside work (which is where you really get to know people): Here I'd expect right now to be those activities that do happen to be so private that only friends are invited and you are not yet sufficiently acquainted with people to be in there. More official/group public (less private) activities where you would be invited are quite likely to still not happen right now.
+ for mostly private activities relating to the group it is a bit of a gray zone whether you should be invited or not: when a colleague has, say, a BBQ to celebrate their PhD defense or birthday somewhere else, it would be up to them whom they invite. If they don't know you, I'd say chances are 50 : 50 for you to get invited.
+ I'd expect they start meeting sometimes at a pub again. But in order to know of this (and be invited to come along), you'll like need to first gain entrance into the lunch group.
+ People over here are more "private" in, say, whom they invite into their garden or house or flat. And that applies now even more than usual.
+ OTOH, if someone brings a cake for their birthday to the office, all group members should be invited.
Unfortunately, this may still be forbidden (like coffee) by your institute administration - or your colleague may not be sure whether it is allowed or advisable and therefore not do it.
+ There are usually also official group social activities - again, I know of institutes whose administration plain forbids any such activities at the moment, even if they are legal and no substantial risk (I've heard such a discussion recently where the proposed activity was to walk to the botanical garden in groups of 10 people, all outdoors, not even taking a bus. Still no way with the administration.)
---
I'd recommend to try and get acquainted with people at work and outside in parallel. I find meeting people outside work easiest at sports, either university sports (which should be open to you as well) or sports clubs.
There may also be sports groups at work, but again, at least the official ones may still be dormant due to Covid...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Firstly ask yourself a question: why do you need them?
If it's only for work you can have only official relationships.
If it's for friendship and fun you can find other people in different places.
We just create problems for our self. Maybe this is not a problem at all? Put more attention to your research or find more friendly environment. Please do not force yourself to friend with them. Forget about it, just do what you should do by your responsibilities and leave them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Go to the lunch alone, if they don't invite you to the table, don't attend the meeting. talk with advisor..
If they invite you, attend the meeting, you should be more open.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: I really doubt that the PhD group don't invite you because they don't want you to be there. It is probably just a misunderstanding- for example, somehow word did not get around to you that some social meet up was happening (probably online) but the people in your group probably thought you knew about it but just did not attend. Sometimes the supervisors don't even know about or keep track of these student get-togethers. They may be being organised by one or two students from a different group (if they are between groups) and perhaps these people just did not get your name as a new phd student, so you weren't invited.
There are probably some underlying reasons that the group think you are antisocial, or don't know you are a phd with the same group (you said you are down the corridor. Maybe they just think you are an intern since you are separate). The first thing I would do is: go to the meeting, and make sure everyone is one the same page about you being a PhD student with the same supervisor, just like them.
Talk more and become friends with a couple of people in the group. Chances are they will send you a message before one of the lunches and say 'hey a group of us often meet up for lunch and eat together. Do you want to join?'. It is useful if you have some instant messenger for that (facebook, whatsapp etc), or check your email regaularly.
If that fails, go to lunch and just approach them when you see them. Either ask if you can join, or just pull up a chair. You can keep eye contact with, smile and say hi to the couple of people you are closer aquantances with. Just make sure that you keep it smiley and confident rather than awkward. Try to integrate yourself with the group.
Remember that you are doing nothing wrong by trying to have social interaction with the group. You are not infiltrating some social bubble, you are trying to build relationships. A group with good relationships between the members works better together.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: First time poster here, so please be kind and let me know if there is something I should improve.
I basically agree with the other answers, but I'd like to address an aspect which as far as I can see has not yet been mentioned: How have you been introduced to the group?
Over the years I have been working in several German groups and depending on the group dynamics I experienced at least one or even all of the following activities:
* Boss/professor/supervisor writes an email to everyone, announcing the arrival of a new group member (along the lines "... Warm welcome to our new group member Alice, who will work with Bob on XY...")
* New group member uses the opportunity to write an email to everyone (including information such as "my name is ... thanks for the welcome... will be in office xy ... I am looking forward to meeting you and working with you... feel free to drop by my office to discuss XY")
* In the first week(s) follows the "[Einstand](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstand_(Feier)) (link to German wikipedia)" by the new group member. Short summary: New employees in Germany often invite their colleagues to a short (!) get-together which serves as means to introduce themselves. Typically it takes place in the room where the group has coffee, lunch (if brought from home) or informal chats. Typically it is either breakfast (for example in Bavaria white sausages), a small lunch if you want to be really fancy or (most common) cake in the afternoon. Typical sweets from your home region are normally also well received and gives you something to talk about to brake the ice.
* Did your birthday happen to be recently? Typically people bring cake for their birthday. This also gives the opportunity for a short meeting (for example after lunch) with everyone.
* The same rule may apply for accepted papers or people returning from conferences abroad brought something typical. I worked in a group where all of the above was applied- yes, we ate a lot of cake ;-)
As you can note there is quite some activity that might be "expected" by a new team member. Depending on how much international experience your colleagues have it may be possible that it just didn't come to their minds that you don't know about them and they assume that you want to be left alone.
Therefore I agree with the other answers: I don't think that skipping the group meetings is a good idea, quite on the contrary. I also suggest to pro-actively try one of the activities above and see how it goes. You can always add that due to the covid restrictions you have the feeling that you are still the "new" member and that therefore you want to say hello and meet people. I have yet to meet a scientist who doesn't appreciate food brought by a colleague for whatever reason ;-) If in doubt about it or you worry about covid rules you could always check with your supervisor.
My background:
German who has worked both in academia and industry in Germany and in a few other European countries in German and international groups
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/07
| 1,341
| 5,906
|
<issue_start>username_0: Me and my advisor have weekly meetings. But this week, I didn't have much progress so we won't have much to discuss. I want to cancel the meeting. How to gracefully express that "I don't have much progress this week" without giving him/her the impression that "I didn't work much"(which is true)?<issue_comment>username_1: In a field like mine (math or cs) it is perfectly natural for research to proceed at an uneven pace. I suspect that is true in many fields.
I'd guess your advisor won't be too surprised if you tell them. But you can just ask if they think a meeting is needed and whether there might be things to discuss and ideas to pursue.
And, "not working" for a week is also not that uncommon since our mental energy levels rise and fall and life often intrudes. Whether you want to say that you didn't work is up to you, unless there is some reason for it.
But, if you always made progress at a steady rate there would be little need for meetings anyway. This might be the most important time to have one. And, "proceeding at a steady rate" doesn't really describe research very well.
But phrasing it as a question (should we meet) is probably better than the alternative.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think this week is particularly more important for you to meet your advisor. I would suggest you meet with your advisor and discuss with him the reason why you were not able to make much progress. Was it because of the nature of question you're working on? Is the question/solution not clear to you? Was it because of lack of prerequisites? In which case he could suggest you some reading. Were you not able to make much progress because of personal reasons? For e.g. stress, depression, lack of motivation, etc. Then, he might suggest some other resources or maybe even motivate you in a manner which might again spark your interest in the subject; because sometimes it takes some experience to see how interesting a particular topic is.
I don't think he would have any bad impression about you or judge you if you tell him the truth.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: A (research) meeting does not have to be just about reporting progress. It can be about bringing everyone involved up to date about the status of activities relevant to the success of the (research) project.
Create a summary template with this view in mind.
* Report of New Discoveries
Example: Report on literature that you read that impacts the direction of the research.
* Report on Status of Unresolved Activities from Previous Meeting
Example: Itemize top-level actions that were set at the last meeting and state whether they are completed, ongoing, on hold, or delegated/delayed (waiting on). Provide background information as needed to resolve how to move any uncompleted actions forward for the next meeting.
* Proposals for New Activities
Example: Suggest an upcoming conference that you want to attend or a new theoretical approach that you would like to learn more about.
Finally, plan to use the end of the meeting to create/review a list of actions that you and the other team members should report on at the next meeting.
In summary, you do not have to be embarrassed that you will meet and will report no progress. Stuff happens, delays occur, and yet effective teams still meet to discuss their collaborative project. The greatest benefit will be when you can effectively summarize how the inadvertent delay may impact your timeline to meet your goals, how you might plan to make up the delay going forward, or where you feel you need help to overcome unanticipated problems in your work.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I have been in your exact situation many, many times.
More often than not, my *temptation* (and often what I do) is to send an email a day in advance like "I haven't made much progress since last week. I would be happy to meet if you have something you would like to discuss, but I am also happy to use the time to continue making progress on what we discussed last week." So long as this doesn't happen several times in a row, it is almost always fine, and your supervisor is also busy and I'm sure can other find things to fill one hour.
However, sometimes I (ironically) put off sending that email and the meeting happens anyway, or sometimes the professor wants to meet despite my protests. Sometimes this goes the way you expect -- there's a short meeting that basically ends with "ok let's check in again in a week." However more often than not, and always to my surprise, these meetings can become very interesting sessions where we talk about the project at a higher level without getting bogged down in the week-to-week details. Some very interesting ideas have come out of this, often things that I would never have even thought to try, or new research directions for the project.
So... I'm not sure there is good general advice. If you are clear on what you want to work on, then sending an email to postpone is probably fine and if anything appreciated. But I think it's also ok to keep the meeting and go in with an open mind.
ps -- in the case where you *don't* make progress for several weeks in a row, the solution isn't to be ashamed that you haven't made progress, but to take stock and ask where you are stuck. Sometimes bringing a clear description of a roadblock to a research meeting is just as valuable as bringing tangible progress, since it may point to a problem that needs to be solved that your advisor didn't expect. Often these periods can be associated with feelings of shame and imposter syndrome and low motivation, but that doesn't mean you are actually doing poorly. Sometimes finding a way around your problem or a way to simplify the problem into something more manageable, rather than stick to the original plan, actually *is* the best thing you can do.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/07
| 593
| 2,394
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my childhood, I use to listen the news with the phrases such as:
>
> Dr. *scientist*, professor of *physics* at *university of Stanford* invented/discovered the
> phenomenon..........
>
>
>
The italics used here are dummy values and can be replaced according to the person, place, time and invention.
Now-a-days, although there are contributions from academia, there are phenomenal contributions from commercial or research organizations outside academia. Currently, this may not be applicable to some fields like mathematics etc., but it seems that out-academic contributions will be phenomenal in all domains in the coming future.
How do professors perceive this?<issue_comment>username_1: Many "breakthroughs" outside academia are secret and professors never hear about them. This includes trade secrets and military secrets.
Achievements from industrial research labs which do become public are treated in the same way that achievements from academic labs are treated.
Most science, including the really good stuff, is incremental progress (small steps) and not "breakthroughs." Breakthroughs are largely an idea made up by popular media.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Professors in subjects like CIS and physics receive many such emails every year. So far, some large percentage (99%? more?) have turned out to be from cranks.\* So, even if your contribution is the exception, many of them will disregard it.
Perhaps the thing to do is write it up carefully, and submit to a reputable journal. They are more likely to give your breakthrough some attention.
>
> \* **crank** an eccentric or odd person, esp someone who stubbornly maintains unusual views
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Breakthroughs from outside academia are nothing new. The light bulb was not invented by a professor, nor was the telephone. In fact, you might be interested in stories about the Bell Labs and the Xerox Labs as examples of research institutions run by companies.
As such, most professors will probably neither be surprised nor bothered or concerned in the least by "breakthroughs from outside academia". This has always happened, and it's a good thing: In many regards, technological progress is driven by advances made in the private sector. Many of these advances were made possible by academic research, but it takes both.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/08
| 2,383
| 10,478
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work at a large public university in Washington state. Until recently, many buildings on campus have been closed, masks have been required, etc. Campus is now opening up, and vaccination is required for students and employees unless they have medical, religions, or philosophical reasons for not getting vaccinated. Anyone who does not vaccinate is supposed to wear masks, but vaccination status is self reported by checking some boxes (no actual proof).
We have just received the following guidance:
>
> Vaccination attestation information is private and confidential.
>
>
> * Instructors may not ask their students about their vaccination status, nor will they have access to students’ records or be expected to verify students’ vaccination status. Instructors may broadly inform students that individuals who are not fully vaccinated need to wear face coverings in the classroom.
>
>
>
It seems unreasonable to rely on the higher powers to somehow enforce what seems to be an essentially unenforceable mask mandate for unvaccinated people. I understand that asking questions about why someone has not been vaccinated, etc. may constitute harassment as it may force people to disclose information such as medical issues, etc. However, that does not preclude asking vaccination status as a yes/no question.
What are the ethical considerations surrounding this mandate? In the absence of such a mandate, is asking student vaccination status unethical? In the presence of such a mandate, what are potential consequences for doing so?<issue_comment>username_1: Any personal health information is usually deemed highly sensitive. Regarding health records specifically, many countries have laws strictly regulating broad aspects of such records with an eye towards preserving individual privacy. In the US, for instance, two Federal laws (FERPA and HIPAA) could apply to universities. The legal situation seems touchy, here's a link to recent guidance for instance [PDF](https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/2019%20HIPAA%20FERPA%20Joint%20Guidance%20508.pdf)
**In the absence of such a mandate, is asking student vaccination status unethical**
Instructors are widely acknowledged to be in a position of authority over their students derived from discretion over grading. Asking a student to divulge sensitive private information of any sort, particularly information not especially relevant to an instructor's educational duties, is usually deemed inappropriate. This certainly applies to health information.
Ethical considerations are subjective. Assume you agree that the privacy of personal health information is extremely important. Most Universities in the US I've seen have intentionally constructed human and technical infrastructure for checking vaccination statuses and maintaining the privacy of such records. Presuming an instructor is aware of this and is not trained in handling such information sensitively, it seems unethical to me to put a student's privacy at risk trying to investigate personally when a more secure alternative is readily available.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is usually, but not always, unethical for an employee to unilaterally decide that a policy of their institution — by any account, a policy reached after considerable debate and consideration — doesn’t apply to them and go against that policy; and it is particularly so when going against the policy means forcing or pressuring students who are subject to your authority to disclose private medical information.
Instructors have a right to a safe workplace, yes. Students have a right to privacy, and to bodily autonomy. And yet, people tend to get overly dogmatic about their rights and forget that rights are not absolute. “I have a right to X” almost never means “I have a right to X under any possible circumstances, even when my right to X will violate someone else’s right to Y”. So, both students and instructors have to give up something: in the case you are describing, the students will have to get vaccinated unless they qualify for an exemption, and disclose their vaccination status to the institution. The instructors will have to trust that the vaccination policy the institution put in place will be enough to ensure their workplace safety, and resist the urge to use their authority to compel students to disclose information they might feel entitled to. There is nothing unusual or ethically problematic about such compromises, it is exactly how ethics works in other contexts, and conceptually similar to lots of other situations we encounter in other areas of our lives in which the rights of two groups of people are in conflict and compromises need to be made.
In the end, any policy an institution chooses is going to offend some group of people. As long as the decisions were reached in a thoughtful and reasonable way and following applicable laws, the offended people don’t have much of a leg to stand on, legally or ethically.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It is exactly because it is deemed unethical to inquire about a persons vaccination status (or any other health related issue), my institution did not make a difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons and is still requiring everyone to wear a wask (at least for now until the general vaccination numbers are higher).
I don't know if this an option in your case, but maybe you could just ask everyone to wear a mask BECAUSE you cannot and should not ask people if they are vaccinated or not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I was a graduate student and am now an employee in a medical school/clinical department at a public university in the US. Even though I have no contact with patients, it is required for me to be up-to-date on certain vaccines, in particular the annual flu vaccine. There is currently no such mandate for the COVID-19 vaccines, but *this may change once those vaccines get full approval rather than approval emergency use*. Employment status, including as a graduate student, is a bit different than student status legally, I believe, but that's not the important thing I wanted to mention:
**Enforcement of this requirement has never been up to individual professors or supervisors.** Some people may qualify for waivers to not get the annual flu vaccine, but there is a *system and process* for managing those waivers that goes through HR and the university's health service. That health service is bound by all sorts of additional laws like HIPAA (which may or may not apply to others like professors). None of this is an instructor's job, shouldn't be, and doesn't need to be.
I'm not sure what the best ways are to manage this information. So far my institution has used a hybrid approach, treating student housing residents a bit more strictly than the general student population (the argument being that you don't need to live in a dorm if those requirements are too onerous on you), asking for voluntary disclosure, and asking for compliance with the rules. They had a phone app for building access during the Spring semester that gave a "green light" for people allowed to enter buildings, but no one seeing that information knew the reason for the green light (or red, for that matter): it could be due to vaccination status, a recent test, or some other decision to exempt an individual. I think all these steps are reasonable compromises between personal health privacy and public health safety, but none of them rely on the discretion of instructors.
If you have concerns about how your university is handling these sorts of things, take it up with the health officials at your university. Don't try to implement any special policy in your own classrooms. Going against these policies could result in severe sanctions against you including loss of your position, especially in the case that anything you do brings legal risks or costs to your department or institution.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Vaccination against coronavirus is spreading in many countries, and in the United States, a "train" with vaccines literally flies across all states, because the head of the White House, <NAME>, promised to vaccinate 70% of the population by July 4. Nevertheless, some voluntarily continue to refuse doses of the vaccine. Some wondered why the issue of vaccination could be a problem, while others felt that it should remain a personal matter for everyone, and should not put pressure on their friends.
I think it's okay to ask this. You have the right to ask if your colleagues are vaccinated for example. They have the right not to answer, but then it is reasonable to assume that they are not vaccinated. The guys at my job who are vaccinated are happy to announce this. I believe that silent people are unvaccinated. Time will tell since vaccinations have to be confirmed in order to work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: There is no need here for the instructor to violate their students' privacy.
---
>
> It seems unreasonable to rely on the higher powers to somehow enforce what seems to be an essentially unenforceable mask mandate for unvaccinated people.
>
>
>
Why do you think the situation should be different than from any other health-data related situation?
Where I am, if a student claims they're sick/disabled/..., it's not the instructor who judges the student's health status and what the appropriate measures are. This judgment is done by a medical professional (or possibly the disability office) who then writes an attestation saying what accomodation is appropriate, but never why.
Exemptions from mask requirements can be handled in the same way without unduly compromising privacy. Whether such an exemption is because they are vaccinated, because they already had the infection or even because some medical condition that means they should be exempted even if they are not immune is none of the instructor's business.
In addition, if your school doesn't offer any privacy rights compliant way for you to check, ask the respective office to send someone who is qualified to see that health data to check whether your students comply. This is their proper business.
But do not yourself violate your students' right to have their health data treated appropriately.
---
Would you hesitate to give first aid to a student because you don't know their hepatitis vaccination status?
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/08
| 1,167
| 4,898
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is wrong with me? I studied hard and get so low marks? What am I missing?
I thought I would score 70/80 in COA subject but I got only 49/80. It is a subject where I would even pass if I went to the exam today. I don't understand why is this happening to me. In class 11,12, I would easily get good marks when I studied hard for it. Even before that, I used to get good marks. But nowadays no matter how much I study I keep getting low marks. If I don't study, I fail.
What is wrong with me? I am really frustrated. I study so hard to get low marks... What am I missing? This is really hampering my self confidence and it is going to close many doors for my graduate studies. I am really frustrated with this.<issue_comment>username_1: ### It's normal. Don't worry about it.
I'm guessing that you used to be one of the smartest kids at your high school, and you studied really hard so that could get into a good university, right?
So did all the other kids in your class. As a result, your course and its marking was designed to take into account the overall higher level of ability possessed by the students, so that they can discriminate between the top students and the middle-of-the-road students within that cohort of students who were talented and driven enough to be admitted to begin with.
As a result of this, you're being held to a higher standard than you were in high school; something that might have earned you an A there might just earn you a C now that you're a university student.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There seem to be at least three potential issues raised by your question. They appear to be conflated in either your thinking, or your question, and it is not clear which is really important.
The first possibility is that you are saying you study hard, understand the material and know the domain but are then somehow either unable to access your knowledge in an exam situation (e.g., in a multiple choice examination), or able to access your knowledge but unable to express yourself coherently in an exam (e.g., with essay format answers).
Another possibility is that you are saying you put in hours and hours of study but that you find the material incomprehensible even though you think you ought to grasp it.
And thirdly, you might be saying that you study a lot, believe that you have grasped the material, complete the exam believing that you have done well, but then discover that you have done worse than you expected.
In my opinion, it will be impossible for you to solve your problem unless you can first work out which of these issues is at the heart of your apparent failure. The different problems require different solutions. In the absence of more information, it seems foolhardy to make to many suggestions, but briefly:
Problem 1 sounds like something that is usually called "stage fright", "performance anxiety", or "exam anxiety". If this is the problem, I suggest that you talk to a psychologist about solving it. The kind of psychologist you want is one who is not an *analyst* but rather, someone interested in cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders.
Problem 2 sounds like something that happens fairly commonly to bright high-school students who progress to good colleges and universities; it is touched on by @username_1 in their answer. You did very well at high-school (i.e., in your local pond). You apply to a good college or university (perhaps one with high standards, where you were surprised, or delighted to have been accepted), and now you are one of a cohort that is quite unlike the one at high-school. Although you were among the brightest of the bright in the high-school pond, in your new environment, you are average or below average in performance, even if not in IQ! The solution here is to accept that you're struggling, and to get some tutorial help.
Problem 3 can be solved by getting more information from your teachers or professors. You will want to discover what it is that you *thought* you understood even though you (demonstrably) did not understand it. You'll want to find out how you misled yourself and what you can do to prevent that from happening in the future, perhaps by finding a way of clearly checking your own understanding *before* it's put to the test in a critical examination. (Quiz books in your relevant area, with answers are a great support here).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: @<NAME>, I have seen people face the same problem, it probably must have been due to pressure, the memory where you have stored much of your information could have been replaced by something else, so you must have done something else that must have replaced the information that you studied. It's always good to take a break from doing anything, and then studying again, so then what you studied stays in your mind fresh.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/08
| 1,392
| 5,444
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are UK universities allowed to require their students to have the Covid-vaccination prior to attending physical teaching? Have any announced the intention to do so for the next term? Would an allowance for "religious or philosophical" objections need to be made?<issue_comment>username_1: I cannot answer for UK universities, but the planning for my university in Germany is that it will require either documentation of a vaccination, or of having recovered from COVID, or of having a negative test within the last x hours. Most of the entrances are closed, and all students can only enter the buildings by going past a person who checks their paperwork.
Students with religious or philosophical objections can thus participate in physical teaching by getting tested every day they want to attend university. Right now, the tests are free, but not offered by the university. So there is no financial hurdle for those students, but there is a real hurdle in terms of time and organization.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: No vaccination requirement has been announced by any UK university to date that I am aware of. It is not planned at the UK university where I work. I think this is very unlikely to happen, as it raises a [range of legal and privacy issues](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56755161). It would also be very controversial, as the topic of COVID-status certification generally has been here.
The [UK government's current position on Covid-status certification](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-spring-2021-reviews-terms-of-reference/covid-status-certification-review-report) is (as of 6 July 2021):
>
> the Government will not mandate the use of COVID-status certification
> as a condition of entry for visitors to any setting at the present
> time
>
>
>
However, they do not rule it out for the future and **they do not plan to prevent any business/organisation from imposing their own rules** (subject to existing privacy/discrimination laws). Existing laws would most likely necessitate exceptions for medical, religious, and likely other reasons as discussed in [this article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56755161).
As a note, most universities in the UK strongly encourage [regular Covid testing](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-reopening-buildings-and-campuses/higher-education-coronavirus-covid-19-operational-guidance) (twice weekly at my institution) of their students and staff who are attending campus. However, the universities do not know if this is actually done by a particular individual or what their test results are. They also have no way of checking covid vaccine status as this is considered private health information.
Like anything Covid related this could change, **but as it stands now a requirement for Covid vaccination for students to attend a UK university is technically legal, however it appears very unlikely.** Of course it would be prudent to confirm this with your institution.
**Update as of 26 July 2021:** the UK Government has floated the idea of [requiring vaccination for attendance at lectures](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unjabbed-students-face-ban-as-raging-boris-johnson-targets-vaccine-refuseniks-jmwwkcwfh). I still think this is unlikely to happen due to a variety of legal, logistical, and practical reasons but it seems more likely then it did when I first wrote this post.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The Council of French Rectors said it supports the full reopening of universities only after widespread vaccination of staff and students. But in general, European universities are more loyal to vaccine refusals.
Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, Germany do not oblige employees and students to get vaccinated, although they actively promote it. The Council of Rectors of Italian Universities said: University staff are vaccinated as part of a national campaign to vaccinate certain people, but universities have not yet planned to require it from teachers and students of the profession. But the council of Spanish rectors even asked the staff: to consider universities in the priority group for vaccination.
In many European universities, vaccination is not required for continuing education on campus, and epidemiological control and prevention are provided through access control, dilution of streams, regular, and so on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I had the chance to raise the question of making Covid vaccination mandatory for our students at a faculty meeting. The answer was our university leadership, union representatives and the Welsh government had discussed the issue, and arrived at the conclusion that it is **not possible for our (Welsh) university to enforce a vaccination requirement on our students**. So it seems we need to rely on our students doing the right thing on their own volition.
**Update** (July 29th): Raab is making some noises about maybe demanding students to be vaccinated in September (when there would be enough time for students to actually get both jabs). It is unclear whether he is taking about England or the UK. [BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58009677)
**Update** (July 31st): Right now, the government is saying they don't have any plans in this direction. [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/31/vaccine-status-proof-required-students-england-covid)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/08
| 691
| 2,987
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am most active on the statistics stack exchange (Crossvalidated). I run into the occasional graduate level student who's in completely over their head. I feel like I can "sniff" questions as being essentially reframed homework problems for large projects or theses where they haven't any idea how to proceed. Sometimes I venture an answer because I put thought into one aspect of the work, but when it inevitably doesn't satisfy the OP, they reach out to various means with the usual request, "Hey can you just do this for me the right way? I'll pay you."
Whether they are honest or not about this being school work or other work with a plagiarism clause, is it wrong to accept pay to do it for someone else? It seems like the language around plagiarism faults the one who submits it as their own work, but I worry I may blacken my name within circles if it eventually comes about that I did the work submitted as someone else's.<issue_comment>username_1: Yeah, it's wrong. A very similar scenario is a tutor doing a student's homework for them, rather than helping them learn how to do it themselves.
It's probably unlikely you'd face any punishment for doing it, but ethics apply whether consequences are present or not. There's nothing wrong with giving some guidance, but it's pretty apparent if someone is being fishy about it that they know something is wrong, and if you proceed anyway you're acting unethically.
Importantly, a statistician needs a pretty wholistic view of a project to do the work properly. If someone is being shady about the goals and only revealing partial information, you're likely to not provide them with the best approach, and their work (and possibly their field, if they get it published) will suffer for it. They should be collaborating with someone above-board, and they probably don't even need to pay for it, they just need to find someone with the quantitative skills to share authorship with. Alternatively, if it's the "homework assignment" variety, then they'll just run into the same problem again in the future when they haven't learned and statistics but need to apply them to a research project.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Precisely as you state the issue, I agree with [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/170901/75368), but there is a possible subtlety since these are grad students.
There are some situations in which research assistance for details of statistical analysis might be appropriate.
One way to sift the bad from the good is to ask the potential client whether you can ask their advisor for permission for what you are asked to do. If they are willing to make your assistance public, and the advisor agrees, then you have no issues and accepting pay or even co-authorship of some paper might be appropriate.
But, as username_1 implies, if it needs to be kept private then it is certainly wrong and, ethically, you should stay away from it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/08
| 1,084
| 4,590
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have information that I found on YouTube, and when I searched for it on Google, I did not find it in any book, not even in an article, and nor in Google Scholar. Can I mention this information without a reference?
I am afraid that it will have a reference without my knowledge.<issue_comment>username_1: You still need to avoid a charge of plagiarism. If the information is "common knowledge" then you don't need a citation, but otherwise it needs to be attributed to a source. Perhaps the YouTube video had a presenter or something that identifies where the information comes from.
But, as a last resort, credit the video along with a date that you accessed it. The date is needed since things change. For video citations it is common to give the time mark within the video where the information occurs
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have gathered some information from a YouTube video, and if there is no better source for it; then the YouTube video is what you should cite.
Now whether a YouTube video is a reliable source or not depends on a lot of details.
If, for example, the YouTube video is a recording of a reputable academic giving a scientific talk, then you can treat it with the same level of trust as you would treat it had you attended the talk in person (which should include "remain sceptical until you see the actual publication").
If, for example, you are discussing a piece of art and you have come across a YouTube video by the artist discussing their process of creation; or even just a relevant critic commenting on the art, this could be a great primary source.
If, for example, the YouTube video is about a mathematical result, and includes a sufficiently detailed explanation of the proof to follow and verify the proof, it is a reasonable source to assert that the result is true.
If the YouTube video is of a random person (or worse a known crank, liar, etc.) spouting off random stuff, you're better off ignoring the "information".
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: If you’re going to use the fact in your academic writing, then yes, you have to cite it.
The real question is, is the source credible enough that it would be acceptable for you to trust that the fact it claims is a true one? The answer to that does not depend on the fact that the source is a YouTube video: some YouTube videos (say, of a lecture by a Nobel prize winner) will have as much authority as any academic text, and conversely some academic texts (e.g., by a well-known Holocaust denier or anti-vaxxer) will have no credibility even though they are written sources.
When you rely on a fact that someone else claims, you are tying your reputation to theirs. If they are spouting nonsense, it will make you look bad, unless you explicitly warn your readers that the source you are using is potentially unreliable.
But, regardless, you have to cite your source.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You can cite Youtube videos, just include some explanation. The first reference of this PRL [article](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.064301) about rigid-body rotations is a [Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU) so it's certainly been done before in a serious scientific article.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Just as you wouldn't cite Wikipedia directly, you also shouldn't cite YouTube directly. The issue is that both sites present user-generated content immediately, with no peer review or fact checking process (Wikipedia arguably can have these features after the fact via community editors, but it's difficult to know when/if information has been verified). YouTube videos can't easily have inline citations, but academic videos often do cite sources in the description. If they don't, and especially if the topic discussed is something novel, I would consider the video (and maybe the uploader) to be an unreliable source. Consider the video to be like a clue or rumor -- there might be something to it, but you need to dig up more information; as others have said, contacting the uploader (or presenter if it was uploaded by proxy) would be a good first step.
Another thing to keep in mind is that anyone can create a YouTube channel with any unique name; if you're going to consider the video credible based on the credibility of the presenter alone (arguably reasonable but somewhat dubious as a credible presenter would have the same content published in a more rigorous context as well), be sure to verify that the uploader and presenter are actually the same entity.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/08
| 650
| 2,831
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I wrote a paper and submit it to a journal. Currently it's under review.
Later, after checking the preprint over and over, I noticed typos (for example instead of considering $\mathbb{N}^\*$ I wrote $\mathbb{N}$) and I made modifications (not significant): grammar errors, improving the content.
During the review most of the above will be noticed.
If I was asked to make revision should I include the typos... ?
Also, is there any problem if an unnecessary remark - which isn't used and doesn't have an influence on the paper, it's remark of the form theorem x and theorem xx are true if we replace $P\_1$ by $P\_2$ a result which can be concluded trivially - is removed ?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> If I was asked to make revision should I include the typos... ?
>
>
>
Yes, you can and should make any appropriate edits when you submit a revision. Note what you changed, like any other. If you receive no requests for revisions, you can make these changes at the proof stage.
I'm not in math, so I won't address the second part.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Typically, if you find any errors (even if the reviewers dont notice them), you should correct them during the review process. Regarding all the issues you noted, it should be possible to submit a revised version with your corrections and an answer to the reviewers in which you must include and comment on all changes to your manuscript.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: First, I would endorse the two answers already given. As far as the issue of removing superfluous or unnecessary material goes, I would be inclined to remove the material, but with provisos. First, before removing it, consider whether the material now seems superfluous to you because of your familiarity with the subject. It might not be considered superfluous by a reader who is less familiar with the material than you. Indeed, unless the material is simply annoying because it interrupts an otherwise clear chain of thought, I would be inclined to leave the material as it stands. If the reviewers found the material obtrusive, they would say so. The second proviso is that if you do delete the material, you should highlight the fact in the covering letter for the revision and make it clear that the material could be restored if necessary.
I've done this several times in resubmissions (both with mathematical papers and others), and have received both kinds of responses from editors along the lines of either "please restore the deleted lines", or "yes, I agree that the deletion makes the paper flow more smoothly". In one instance, I was asked to put my proposed deletion into an appendix, smoothing the flow of the main paper, but providing a supplementary support for some readers who wanted it.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/09
| 983
| 4,019
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am starting my PhD in three weeks in Denmark. In Denmark, it is usual that PhD students are formally employees of the university but also have student status. I have received recently my employee contract electronically through a trusted website (not email, but a governmental portal, with verified identity of the sender). There was no way to sign it, so I asked how to sign it. To my surprise, I was told that I don't have to sign it.
What is that? The contract states some of my obligations as well as my pay. How can anyone enforce a contract that I have not signed? I have not even explicitly stated that I agree with the contract. (I would have some understanding if they told me to reply that I agree with the contract through the trusted website.)
Can there be any negative consequences for me if I don't sign it? I don't think I would be being unreasonable if I ask firmly that I want to get it signed. For example, the contract specifies several-months-long notice in case they want to fire me. Even though it is unlikely that would be ever a problem, I am worried that it may not apply if I don't sign the contract. Or am I just overreacting?
My supervisor is a very reasonable person and I am sure he would understand if I tell him I want to sign (and get signed) the contract.
If it matters, there is no signature on the contract I have received but it was provably sent by the university's HR.
---
**Update:** While it was not necessary for me to sign the contract, I did need the signed contract from them. I needed this for my residence permit (even though I have an EU citizenship) as well as for my "tax card" (a document that determines my tax bracket (without it, one pays the maximum tax)).<issue_comment>username_1: As far as negative consequences of not signing go, one thing to watch out for is ownership of intellectual property. If you don't have a contract in place that explicitly specifies who owns the IP you create, then you fall back on whatever default arrangement for ownership of IP created by employees is delineated by the public law of your country. That default arrangement is very likely to be less favourable to the employee than an explicit arrangement set out in a university contract.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Employment contracts without signatures are less common in Academia, but most academics would consider them acceptable. In my experience, university purchasing is conducted entirely with unsigned contracts, but employment contracts often have a digital image of a signature on them. The image is just there because it is traditional, not because it is important.
If you want an answer based on law, consult the [Law Stack Exchange.](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31715/what-is-the-point-of-signatures)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In US law at least, a "contract" doesn't necessarily mean a piece of paper that two parties have signed. Any agreement, whether or not it's in writing, can be enforceable. If you are attending the program, that's pretty good evidence that you and the university have made an agreement.
But it's still a good idea to get a signed copy since it's a lot easier to point to a piece of paper than it is to argue that the contract was valid in the extremely unlikely event that the university disputes it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: According to these Danish labor union websites, it is correct that you don’t need to sign:
<https://www.detfagligehus.dk/faa-hjaelp/loenmodtager/i-arbejde/ansaettelse/ansaettelseskontrakt/>
“The law doesn’t say that an employment contract has to be signed. The contract is valid without a signature. What matters is that it has been given to you.”
<https://krifa.dk/fs/ansaettelsesvilkaar/ansaettelseskontrakt-og-vilkaar>
“Did you know that … there is no requirement that your contract has to be signed? If it has been given to you and/or you work according to the contract, it is already valid.”
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/09
| 967
| 3,924
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'll be giving a presentation in an (online only) academic conference shortly.
**Question:
Would it be unprofessional to use emoji in my conference presentation slides?**
Here's how I think about this issue:
* I've noticed in my personal life that almost everyone uses emoji when messaging / texting / WhatsApping,
thus, I have the sense that as people are comfortable with using and seeing emoji.
I feel like using a few emoji can help with communicating,
and being a little bit less formal in my presentation.
Of course, I don't want to go overboard with overusing emoji in every slide.
* I'm a relatively younger faculty member,
so I'm not sure if the "old folks" will find it too informal or unprofessional
if they see emoji in my presentation slides,
given that traditionally, presentation slides are quite formal.<issue_comment>username_1: I'll reprise my [answer to another question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/90328/63475), which was about emojis in a *paper*:
>
> I'll answer from the perspective of a different field. In the biomedical sciences, it isn't uncommon to use some cartoonish representations to depict animal tasks/procedures, particularly because actual pictures of animal subjects are often avoided for a number of reasons. The same can be true for human subjects.
>
>
>
>
> I wouldn't think twice about seeing a smiling versus frowning monkey indicating task performance in a figure, as long as it was instructive/guiding and not interrupting/distracting. Same for other types of icons like thumbs up/down. Certainly emojis in text would be totally different.
>
>
>
I think all the same applies to a presentation, except that at least in my field (and country) presentations are quite a bit less formal than actual papers (though conference presentations are typically more formal than talks given at a local university, whether by local or visiting speakers).
I would not use emoji to *replace text*. They're perfectly fine used as icons to represent positive/negative. If nothing else I assume they have an extremely permissive license so there's no worry about other "clip art" you might otherwise use.
I'd avoid being too distracting with them: a smile/frown has obvious meaning to everyone, but if your image is going to leave someone in the audience wondering what that icon means instead of thinking about your content, you're doing yourself and them a disservice.
I recall seeing a late-night talk show where they do a bit where they put something like 8 emoji in a row that tell a story from the news. An audience member is supposed to try to figure out what they mean before the host delivers the punch line. They're mildly amusing once you know what is meant, but the audience member never gets it right because, well, that's a terrible way to communicate. Don't do that.
I'd also avoid any subjects that wouldn't be appropriate in the setting as a non-emoji. If you wouldn't normally make sex jokes in your talk, don't do it with emojis either. Unless your talk is actually about fruits and vegetables, probably best to stay clear of peaches and eggplants, or to choose different produce representatives.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When teaching, including graduate courses (in math, in the U.S.), nowadays I do routinely use smiling/frowning emojis to denote success versus failure or trouble.
Also, giving Zoom talks via prepared PDFs, I do add handwritten smiling/frowning emojis on occasion, partly to show appraisal of the situation, but also for the audience's amusement. But I do not have the emojis typeset into the PDFs, since I usually like to gauge the attitude of the audience first.
Perhaps I'm old enough, already having proven my "seriousness", that it's easier for me to "get away with" this, in contrast to much younger people who may still be needing to prove their gravitas?
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/09
| 545
| 2,177
|
<issue_start>username_0: Do you paraphrase in a literature review or just copy stuff and add credits at the end.
for example if I needed to use the following sentence :
>
> By applying advanced and predictive analytics up front, companies can build R&D plans they can stick to, for shorter lead times and better cost discipline.
>
>
>
Which of the following approaches works best?
>
> 1.By applying advanced and...... better cost discipline (Mckinsey Global Institute, 2017)
>
>
>
>
> 2.Using predictive analytics ahead of time can allow companies to create more feasible R&D strategies with shorter lead times and better cost discipline (Mckinsey Global Institute, 2017)
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: To avoid both plagiarism and copyright issues you can quote short passages and cite the original. You can also paraphrase and cite.
For long passages you have to paraphrase and cite (avoiding copyright issues). But for such short passages, just quote.
Which of your versions is "better" depends on more than you can say here, so I won't suggest more.
---
Note that if you quote (and cite) a *lot* of short phrases you can still run in to copyright issues as (in the US at least) you can't quote so much as to reduce the value of the original.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'd say **neither**. You shouldn't really be "using sentences" out of sources you include in a literature review, you should be writing everything in your own words and then citing for where you got the **concepts and ideas**. You don't just substitute words around and rearrange a sentence and then tack on a citation - that's still not your own writing.
Sometimes your summary of the work is going to be quite similar to the authors' own conclusions in their abstract or discussion, and that's okay, but that doesn't seem like what you're doing here. It seems like you want to take a sentence you've read and insert it into your paper.
If you absolutely must reproduce a sentence, you must use quotes to indicate that it came from another source. It's rarely necessary to do this, unless you are directly discussing what someone else said.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/09
| 760
| 3,273
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an international student currently studying in a community college in the United States. I'm applying to a Japanese university and they require me to send them two recommendation letters from my professors directly via postal mail to Japan.
Do the professors have to pay to mail the letters?<issue_comment>username_1: Most professors would be willing to do this, or their department would, but you can also offer to provide them postage for this. You could even take the sealed and addressed letters and post them yourself as an alternative.
But it would seem odd if anyone objected to paying for the postage.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's not the postage that would raise concerns for me -- it's the work flow.
I could, in theory, drop it in my departmental mail bag with the right bar code attached to it, and it would probably work. "Probably" isn't good enough for me, though, when somebody's career is involved. I would make a call or two to make sure it would work, and hopefully I'd get a valid answer.
In practice, with such a request, I would probably just walk the letters into a Post Office, and pay for it myself, just to make sure it would be handled appropriately. Assuming it's under $20US or so, it's a cost I would gladly absorb for peace of mind -- so long as the situation doesn't come up too often!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Back when letters were normally sent by paper mail, the student usually provided a stamped, addressed envelope to the professor. Since letters are rarely sent now, I strongly suggest you do that too; your professors may have forgotten how it works. They might even have stamps that are no longer valid.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: Offering to pay the professor for the postage would likely make them uncomfortable. Accepting cash in return for writing a letter of recommendation would feel weird, like accepting a bribe, even if it only reimbursed them for a cost they would be incurring.
But providing them with a stamped, addressed envelope feels different. That is preventing them from incurring a cost on your behalf in the first place.
I realize this is essentially the same answer as username_3, but I wanted to emphasize that you shouldn't offer to give them any money, but just to give them the stamped addressed envelope.
One benefit of providing that yourself is that it takes the anxiety off the professor about it not getting there.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Here is another perspective from a european university. At my place it would be most strange, if official mail, concerning someone from the institute in even the remotest possible way, would not simply be covered by the institute of the professor. There is also the option to send the mail personally (to make sure everything is done correctly) and then reimburse the cost from the institute (though you would have to be working for the institute).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Another possibility: send the professor an International Reply Coupon. These are available from your local post office, and can be used by the recipient to send a letter first-class airmail. This works regardless of where your correspondent is. No currency exchange required.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/10
| 1,015
| 3,828
|
<issue_start>username_0: I often receive e-mail (typically inquiring about studying with me as a graduate students) from students, especially foreign students, whose gender/pronouns I can't easily tell (they haven't specified). (For people from the Americas and Europe I can usually guess reasonably reliably, but I get fuzzy when we get to names from Asian/African cultures). Let's say their name is "Foo (given name) Doe (family name)". I normally start formal e-mails "Dear [whoever]".
* Applicants don't typically have a PhD, so I can't address them neutrally as "Dear Dr. Doe"
* "Dear Foo" could work, but I generally like to be a little bit more formal with people I don't know (could argue that the rank differential [professor/prospective student] makes this OK?)
* "Dear Doe" is not a form of address I ever use with anyone else, seems weird
* "Dear Mx. Doe" is unusual in North America (and seems uncommon anywhere outside the UK: ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title)))
* "Dear Mr./Ms. Doe"?
* Look up the name on the Internet and make a guess based on the region of origin?
Is there a best practice?<issue_comment>username_1: For a salutation in communications written in English, I would suggest using:
>
> Dear <NAME>,
>
>
>
or
>
> Dear <NAME>,
>
>
>
These salutations seem pretty gender-neutral (gender-inclusive) and sound natural to my ear. They avoid any assumptions on the gender or title of the applicant. This is probably close to the form that you are currently using already.
Justification for this particular best practice: [Gender-inclusive writing: correspondence (Linguistic recommendation from the Translation Bureau, Government of Canada)](https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/en/writing-tips-plus/gender-inclusive-writing-correspondence).
From the same source, it is clear that **a** "best practice" might change for communication in a different language. For French, they would recommend:
>
> Bonjour,
>
>
>
or name-specific:
>
> <NAME>,
>
>
>
However, language dependence is just a side note for this particular question.
Other guidelines also exist, and if your educational institution or country has them, they are definitely worth taking a look at and considering for use. But choosing **some guideline that targets gender-inclusivity** is what one should do nowadays (unless something obviously flawed is discovered about a certain guide at some point).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: First, even in cases where you feel you can guess the gender, I suggest you to avoid using Mr or Ms because, first, there are exceptions that are easily misgendered and, second, you don't know the pronoun of the recipient. As an example of the former, Andrea in my country is a masculine name whereas in other countries is feminine. Many an Andrea has been misgendered along the years (a few years ago a former student of mine who had moved to Switzerland told me that he started signing off his emails as *Andreas* to avoid this).
Guessing which is the family name and which is the given one is also risky because in many Asian countries the family name is written first, but some people use the Western convention when writing to international recipients. In 2006, while organising a conference, I addressed many participants in the wrong way, until I realised about the exchange from the signature of someone I was familiar with.
So, in most cases, I've been using [username_1's](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/170958/20058) solution, with full name, for quite a while. For students, I also use
>
> Dear Student
>
>
>
A bit impersonal but safe.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: When responding to emails to people I have not met, I usually copy the name from the signature and add "Dear" in front.
Upvotes: 7
|
2021/07/10
| 729
| 3,131
|
<issue_start>username_0: I searched the site and couldn't find any information on this topic so I thought I would ask myself.
I have been at work for quite a while now and am fortunate that they have offered to support me while I pursue a Physics PhD in the United States. This would mean that I would not need financial assistance while I completed it. I was curious if this would increase my chances of acceptance at my target universities in the US or would it have no bearing on the outcome.
Following up on this, should I mention that I do not need funding in my statement of purpose/personal statement or would it be a faux pas?
---
Edit:
Thank you everyone for providing information. Yes Roland, it is very similar to a industry stipend but only living expenses/tuition would be covered. With respect to programs, Looktook, I am still in the beginning stages of the application process and haven't narrowed down my target schools, if that is what you meant by your comment. Thank you Buffy for clarifying, so it sounds like my situation is more of a good bonus to have but isn't a reason for me to get too comfortable. My place of employment is outside of the US and they do not have a pipeline to any particular University but thank you for your insight Jon. Fourier, I will keep that information in mind. Once again thank you all for sharing your insights.<issue_comment>username_1: This would depend on the place and probably isn't uniform for physics in the US. In most places the funding decisions and the acceptance are done separately. If you don't qualify when needing funding then funding isn't going to help.
There may be a few positions (spread over a lot of places) where it might matter if the lab you join is grant funded.
If you enter with an MS it might be more helpful, but less so if you apply with only a BS, as most students do.
In other fields it wouldn't matter at all, since most doctoral students are funded as teaching assistants. But some lab sciences will be exceptions.
But the more important thing is to have a good application independent of the funding. They would rather take a good student that needed funding than a mediocre one who doesn't.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, but make that clear in your application or email a professor directly.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: (My context is math at an R1 in the U.S.)
Our usual admission criterion is on merit first, and then have number of admissions limited by our capacity. The point I want to make is that "capacity" does not only mean "number of Research Asistantships or Teaching Assistantships or Fellowships" we have, but, also, on the number of faculty we have as mentors and advisors.
This does presume that faculty behave responsibly toward their PhD students! :)
But, still, yes, there might be a small marginal benefit to have your own funding. Make this clear in your application. But, again, funding is only one part of admission criteria (at least for a responsible department, as opposed to predatory, trying to generate as much tuition as possible without offering much in return).
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/11
| 1,556
| 7,012
|
<issue_start>username_0: As there are different students with different educational and economical backgrounds in the classroom, I would like to know how a professor can deal with those differences. For example, undermotivated students or those whose knowledge is very weak on the mathematical courses - what is the best teaching style for such cases?<issue_comment>username_1: Every teacher, course, group and situation is different but these are things that worked for me (Europe, teaching unmotivated and diverse group of undergrads):
1. **Keep external teaching material** (books, software) **to a minimum**
2. **Give regular feedback on progress** (I usually start every class with a short, very basic quiz about the lass classes (self-corrected by students and with correct answers immediately discussed with class). I tell students that below a certain % of correct answers they need to learn/practice material from previous classes/courses because their background knowledge is a bit lacking.
3. **Provide extra exercises to teach/reinforce the basics** (with detailed solutions) for optional individual work.
4. **Encourage or enforce group work where students teach each other**. (I taught a class where the final assignment was a group work with the worst student's score defining each group member's final score. It was a huge success but it required a lot of work and constant monitoring of group dynamics.)
5. **Praise any good answer and/or students attempting to answer.** Encourage students making mistakes (it gives feedback to both of you and allows to correct misunderstandings before the exam).
6. **Make sure the exercises are relevant both for the subject matter and the students** (e.g., if the majority of your students are biologists, give them examples with trees and not light bulbs)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: What works for me:
Create a set of exercises that cover a wide range of skills, from elementary/introductory ones to challenging ones (some of which may require literature or even own research). The students not only get an entry point into what you wish to teach, but they also can see where it leads, and the strong/experienced ones are not bored.
What's important for students is to learn the methods of thinking, and I usually spend quite some time introducing very thoroughly the method of thinking of the field. Interestingly, even stronger students seem to appreciate that, because they usually are fast in picking up material, but often not very experienced in seeing all the underlying structure. Repetition under different perspectives helps the students to pick up the methods and beginning to see how it works rather than learning by rote.
Focus on fewer, important concepts, treated deeply, rather than a litany of shallow introduction to many different ideas. The students need to learn "how to learn" and "how to approach" a topic, rather than having seen too many different things. The latter, they can do for themselves once they have the tools.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This isn't a complete solution, but only something to think about, depending on how free you are in course design. I think it complements the [answer of username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/170993/75368) to some extent.
I once taught a database (CS) course to a group of very able students at a top university. Almost all were very good, but not all had the same background preparation. There were several projects in the course and (IIRC) they were group/pair based. The course leaned heavily to DB principles and the underlying theory and implementation, not just use of SQL.
One assignment was about search. I made two versions of the same assignment, one easy and one quite difficult. Students could choose to do either one and the grading would be the same, no matter which they chose, based on quality of implementation.
The easy one was to implement a binary search tree and the hard one was to build a b-tree. These are about an order of magnitude different in difficulty (rough estimate). When introducing the assignment I said that if a student had never implemented a binary search tree then I would recommend they choose that one, but if they had done so, that doing it again would bore them silly, and I'd recommend the hard one.
I had a (to me) surprising number of students choose the harder assignment and I judged the experiment successful.
Of course this implies that you are willing to give the same grade for things of different difficulty, but every student learned something of value if they were successful in their implementation and also honest (to themselves) in choosing which to do. This won't work when students are too much grade driven, or otherwise too panicked about grades, but you might consider whether it would work in your environment.
Think about learning more than about grading.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This is a separate idea from my other answer here, and I warn that I haven't tried it in this form, but would consider doing so in the circumstance you describe. But note that I also had great freedom in course design and was always able to justify "odd" pedagogical choices to my department head and dean.
One of my tricks in teaching was to use cumulative grading where students get grades by accumulating points from projects and exams. For me, exams were a relatively small part of the total, but every student knew exactly what grade they earn by adding up the points. So, some students already had nearly enough points accumulated that the final exam was essential irrelevant, so I would excuse them from it, letting them focus on other courses. This idea grows out of that practice.
Suppose you make a deal with your students that they can either take the final exam or, starting after mid term, take on a substantial project requiring some deep learning. Emphasize that the project will be difficult and that the grade for it will substitute for the final exam grade, which they need not take.
In mathematics, a "project" might be the analysis of some paper or the application of course ideas to some specific problem.
I have no evidence, but suspect that the high achievers will be drawn toward the project if you can make it interesting enough. This might also be an opportunity to introduce group or pair work if you don't do that otherwise. You will need some communication channel for these students separate from the entire class since, for the right project, there might be a lot of questions. But the "really good" students probably value a challenge. I hope I'm not too naive about this, but it was my own experience both as a student and later as a professor.
I caution that this might not work above a certain scale. I seldom had to teach as many as 40 students in a class and usually a bit under 30.
If the better students spend a lot of effort on this, then you can focus more on the students who need more help and guidance.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/11
| 547
| 2,601
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of the feedback I received after my PhD interview failure was that " there is not enough evidence of ability to operationalize the research". So how can I clarify my capability of carrying out a research for my next interview. During my failed interview, I was ask to talk about my prior research, therefore I mentioned my master thesis used SPSS. However it seems that my response was not compelling enough.<issue_comment>username_1: Mentioning your skills with SPSS is great but statistical analysis is just a part of research. (And if we speak about this part, I would be more interested in which statistical methods you used and why (who selected these methods, you or your supervisor?, did you consider other methods?, etc.) to see how well you understand statistical analyses.)
More relevant would be your research question, design and contribution to the whole process (Did you come up with these on your own or was it given to you? What was your contribution in designing the study? Did you collect the data? Did you apply for ethical permission (if applicable) on your own? Do you plan to publish your thesis?)
If you are asked a similar question at the next interview, try to give a brief summary of your thesis (topic, design, methods, results, your contribution).
Also: please do not be discouraged that you have not been selected this time! Being invited for an interview means that you are a good candidate. It is just that there are many good candidates out there and limited number of places. Learn from this experience, do not give up and good luck with the next interview!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: One of the best ways to demonstrate skills and ability to carry out a research project is to ask intelligent and relevant questions about the project as part of your interview. When I interview students, that is one of the ways I find out about their ability to understand and put new information in context.
So for instance, a student who will be running experiments might ask about current protocols related to lab work during COVID and then discuss how they might make sure to get the work done under those conditions. Someone doing data analysis might ask about the structure of the data to be analyzed and the packages or libraries used most by the group. They might then comment on how they would approach the analysis or other packages they have found helpful for similar data.
When you treat the interview as a collaborative conversation you can most easily demonstrate your ability to carry out the work successfully.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/11
| 367
| 1,537
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got my bachelors degree in the field of wood and paper science engineering and got my masters degree in the field of industrial engineering. I have more than 15 years of experience in the field of industrial engineering (planning, production planning, mathematical modeling, and multi criteria decision making). Besides, I have 8 years of research experience in the same field with 15 research projects and papers published in international journals with IF between 1.945 to 5.467. I am wondering, is it possible to apply for a PhD in industrial engineering in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand? Or do my bachelors degree and masters degree have to be the same in order to apply for a PhD position?
I know there are many criteria and each university has their own rules and regulation, but can you give me an answer in general?<issue_comment>username_1: **No**, you do not need to have bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the same field in order to apply for a doctorate. Each university will have its own rules and admission criteria, but I have not ever seen it be a requirement.
Some universities will only admit students to the doctorate level if they have obtained a master’s in the same field at the same university as the doctorate, but even this is not always the case.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I can't speak for other countries. In the US, you can directly apply to a Ph.D. program without having a master's degree. I believe your really good experience can compensate a lot.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/11
| 687
| 3,028
|
<issue_start>username_0: I haven't had access to physical books since university libraries have been closed. How do I address this in interviews, and will people dismiss my file because of this?<issue_comment>username_1: You need to be prepared to offer a lot more detail. Most academics have no need for entering a library anymore, so if you do, you need to explain that. If the library offered curbside pickup for some books, you need to explain what that did not work in your case.
Perhaps you work exclusively with rare documents and had medical reasons to not be able to enter a library for 18 months. Did you have other projects you worked on that did not require rare documents? Was your life so disrupted that you could not possibly take on new tasks?
By the way, adding more detail to your question is optional. What I am saying is you need to give more details during your interview or you probably will be dismissed.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me suggest two reasons for loss of productivity that have nothing to do with libraries.
The first is burn-out. If you went through an intense period of you life (academic or other wise) prior to the time the pandemic hit, you might just be suffering from that. It can be debilitating. My solution (long ago) for dealing with it was to make a rather large change. That brought me back and I was able to continue with renewed energy. A period of rest (that the burn-out itself generated) may have also contributed.
The second possibility is more serious: depression, which is a medical condition. I don't know much about it, but do know that one should talk to a professional about it, probably a doctor. Clinical depression can lead to a lot of bad things beyond lack of productivity. Professional advice, and maybe medication, can help.
But make sure that you diagnose the issue accurately (or have it done by a professional), no matter what it is. Continuing as you are isn't likely to help.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You don't give a lot of background details, so let me also say that it doesn't seem clear why you would need to "address this in interviews" at all. Focussing on things you weren't able to do, and making excuses — even if they might be valid excuses — is usually not something that should be discussed in any great detail, unless there are some very good reasons (your area of research needs access to rare physical documents that are not available digitally, see the answer by username_1). Try to focus instead on things you did do.
If you are asked specifically why you were not as productive as before, then answering that libraries were closed is usually not going to be helpful. However, showing that you reflected the fact that it took you some time to adapt to the new situation and find a new workflow is reasonable to admit openly. Yet again, the main focus of any interview should be your ideas and what you did achieve, not how external circumstances prevented you from doing what you wanted to do.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/12
| 869
| 3,653
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose that an early career researcher received a job offer from a country that the researcher really doesn't want to go to, because of political or other personal reasons (concern for safety, homophobia, etc.) Would researchers understand that researcher's decision? Would the researcher have to go in order to continue their career?
Would it look bad if letters of recommendation said, "He/she got an offer in \_, but turned it down. So he/she is applying again."?<issue_comment>username_1: I’m not sure I understand your question. People turn down offers all the time (even if they don’t have a competing offer) for all kinds of perfectly valid personal reasons.
The city is not to their liking in this or that way, the university does not offer sufficient spousal or child support, the cost of housing or living is too high, the commute is too long or the campus is difficult to reach… whatever: all valid reasons that are difficult to establish until you have an actual offer in hand and have visited the place.
You might care to contact your referees and explain why you did not take the offer (they might not even know you got an offer), and you might not want to do this serially, but otherwise why would a referee even discuss this in a letter? After all, they are supposed to support you, not torpedo you applications.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Would researchers understand that researcher's decision?
>
>
>
You seem to be imagining the other researchers as being much more interested in the personal life and preferences of someone they don’t know than they actually are. In truth, the researchers would not “understand”, simply because they have no particular interest in why someone chooses to go or not to go to some city/country/university. They won’t spend any time even thinking about it. It is universally understood that people have personal preferences and that moving to another geographical location is a big decision that impacts all aspects of the person’s life. Beyond that, no one cares.
>
> Would the researcher have to go in order to continue their career?
>
>
>
Absolutely not. Of course, if they don’t go, they are passing over a professional opportunity. There is no guarantee that an equally good one will present itself in the next application round. But I have a feeling the researcher has already considered this aspect of the situation…
>
> Would it look bad if letters of recommendation said, "He/she got an offer in \_, but turned it down. So he/she is applying again."?
>
>
>
No sensible person would ever think of writing such a thing in a letter of recommendation. It is a completely irrelevant fact that has no bearing on the candidate’s application or on any kind of information a letter of recommendation is traditionally expected to provide.
In the event that someone does write such a thing in a letter, no sensible person would find such a fact relevant to the strength of the application or would be inclined to let it influence their judgment.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: You wrote in a comment:
>
> I was worried about being negatively judged.
>
>
>
Let them judge you!
If something is important to you, if you base life changing decisions on it and if it bothers some people, then you can use it as a very reliable indicator that you would *not* want to work with them.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: This would generally be understood.
I am not sure why the declined offer would be a major plot point in a recommendation letter (but then academics write all sorts of irrelevant stuff in such letters).
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/12
| 613
| 2,534
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:** CS undergrad applying to CS PhD Programs FALL 2022 USA. I have two different CVs.
**4 Page CV:**
* Contains 3 bullet points for every internship
* 2 extra projects
* Separately spaced headings for talk (just one), awards, papers (working, workshop, journal, conference).
* Separate heading for skills
**2 Page CV:**
* One page for all publications
* Just the mention of advisor and institute for internship
* no extra projects mentioned
* Awards and talks merged under "education".
**Question:** Which one should I choose to apply with? I have a personal website which contains all my experience in an exhaustive sense. I personally feel undergrads should mostly restrict their CV to a page, but since that is not possible for me I am going for 2.
**Note:** I am aware of other similar questions but they are not for CS and I am talking about presented papers and internships in specific.<issue_comment>username_1: We recently hired two PhD students, one with a 1,5-page-CV, the other with a 5,5-page-CV. **What matters is the content.** If you can fill 4 pages with relevant information, go for it, but I would **go for 1-2 pages** with hyperlinks to relevant content (LinkedIn, Google Scholar, your website, publications, ORCID, etc. - whichever you use).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the answer by username_1 that content matters much more than size, and I would add that what also matters are:
1. Readability.
2. Densitiy of information.
**Readability:** I've sometimes seen people press a lot of (relevant) information into two pages, probably because somebody had told them that "a CV should not be longer than two pages"; this typically had the consequence that it was very difficult to get an overview of the CV and to find specific information when explicitly looking for it.
(So the point is that a brief document is not necessarily the same as a document that can be read quickly and easily. In most cases, one should go for the latter.)
**Density of information.** In my experience, lengthy documents (be they CVs or something else) are considered problematic only if the density of information is perceived as too low - this will leave the impression that you talk a lot although you don't have much too say.
So if you make sure that everything in your CV is really relevant for your application and take some thought to make it as readable as possible, then you should be fine in most cases, no matter the page count.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/13
| 1,102
| 4,752
|
<issue_start>username_0: I watched a lecture answering the question "How did Native Americans arrive in North America?" During the presentation, the presenter put up a slide showing the "5 major scholars" working on answering that question, and which theories each scholar supported.
Were it not for those slides, looking at JSTOR or Google Scholar, I'd be lost to know which papers were written by the top scholars. There are so many scholars studying that question.
Finding names on faculty pages isn't so useful...a professor could work at a small state university, yet be very highly regarded in their field, the leaders aren't all at Ivy League schools.
Starting with a research question or specific subject area, how can I identify who are the major scholars in the area?<issue_comment>username_1: When looking for leading scholars in computer science I typically start by (1) looking for leading conferences on the concrete field. After having a set of well recognized conferences I (2) start looking for authors that appear in more than in one edition of the conference. After that just search on Google Scholar or Scopus and confirm if they indeed do research in the topics that you are interested in.
The same process can be used for journals, just check for authors that appear in more than one issue of the journal.
However, this is the way I use to find lead scholars in computer science field, so maybe it does not generalize well for all the research fields. Also, sometimes there is some bias in authors that always submit to the same conferences, so take everything with a grain of salt.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll limit this to those fields for which national and international conferences are an important part of the life of a typical scholar.
Who are the invited and "featured" speakers at large conferences? Usually they will have a long and important place in driving the field in recent (but perhaps not the *most* recent) years.
If possible, go to several conferences and see who creates "buzz". Who gets asked questions? Who has an "entourage"?
Sometimes, however, the time of the superstars is a bit past. Look, then, to their students and to those who have extended their work. Unfortunately, however, you will come up with a large group. But if a lot of people are looking to learn the current thinking of the wise old folk, they are probably still relevant.
Another way to learn of the up and comers is to see who is given the "best paper" award at a conference. No guarantees, but that might indicate a bright future at the edge.
Caveat: "Field" is pretty nebulous. Math and CS are both highly balkanized, for example. I suspect Physics and some others are too. The specialties and the specialties within specialties have their own superstars. If the specialty is narrow enough, there may be only a few people contributing significant work. The technique here works better for those more widely known than narrowly, unless you can find conferences with a narrow focus.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: That brings us to the beauty of quantification. Change everything into numbers. Make them measurable. One among many ways to do this would be checking the index scores, be that h-index or i10-index or some other indicator.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Starting with a research question or specific subject area, how can I identify who are the major scholars in the area?
>
>
>
The usual method is to start with some kind of literature search to see who has written books or papers on the subject. This will usually lead you to a number of authors (some of whom may be dead but others who are alive), and you can then start looking them up and reading their university profiles to see how heavily they specialise in that area, and what credentials they have in the area. If you can identify research institutions or journals that specialise in the subject area of interest then you can usually find a list of their personnel (e.g., editors of a journal), and these people would usually be experts in the field. If you can identify important prizes in the field then you can also look at lists of prize winners to try to identify the top experts.
This process is similar to the standard literature review process, insofar as it usually starts with some small leads, which then snowball into bigger leads, and so on, until you get a good overview of the big names in a field and you find out more and more details about their writings and credentials. If you can identify one big name in a field you can also write to that person (assuming it is important enough that you are not wasting their time) to see if they can recommend other experts.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/13
| 1,438
| 6,543
|
<issue_start>username_0: A person I care about has problems with depression and anxiety and is starting a PhD soon. She has some questions I was not able to answer, so I was hoping you could give some advice. It is in a developed European country. I do not want to specify the country for fear of doxing her.
She was successful in her Bachelor's and Master's degree. She has had a job in her area the past more than a year and was also successful in it, with her boss being happy with her work. However, because of COVID, she has been on home office basically the whole time, allowing for a lot of flexibility. This has allowed her to not work when she was not feeling well and as long as the job got done, everyone was happy. It is the same story with the Master's studies, as long as she learned the things in time, that was sufficient. The flexibility has also made it much simpler to go to therapy, which is rather hard to get outside of standard working hours.
While it is possible that things will be good most of the time, there is a good chance she will need some accommodation at some point. She will also likely be starting using antidepressants and it is not clear what short-term effect that will have.
What is the best way of going about this? If we knew the supervisor and knew that they would be understanding, it seems like the way to deal with this would be to tell this professor. The university where she will be working has a disability office, so contacting them sounds like a good choice. Could the supervisor feel like we (she) is trying to go around him by not telling him first (he clearly shouldn't, but does it happen)? Do you think we should try to start discussing this with the university now, or is it better to wait until she officially starts? A third option would be to start resolving this when (if?) problems arise, but that does not sound smart.
Another thing we are worried about is what happens if there is something in her studies that causes her problems to get worse. Would it be reasonable to contact the disability office about that? For example, I would be worried about external pressure before paper deadlines. What is the best way of dealing with that?<issue_comment>username_1: Persons with depression and/or anxiety can have very different disease trajectories and it is very hard to anticipate severity, length of episodes, reactions to treatment and medication, etc. For this reason, I would be very careful with sharing "what might happen"-sort of information.
Talking to the disability office (what a horrible name) is a great idea but I would first ask for information in general: what sort of help they provide, what are the processes for people with mental health problems, etc. I would also ask what they advise about informing the supervisor(s) and/or research group. They should have plenty of experience both about PhD students and researchers with mental health problems and how this specific university handles these issues. I think talking to the disability office is also confidential so it is unlikely the supervisor is likely to know about it - unless the DO is asked to interfere.
Also, I would ask the supervisor about flexible working hours in general because that answer will also impact of what needs to be shared with them. In this talk your friend could also mention she does not deal well with pressure and how she is currently doing. In any case, having honest and open communication with the supervisor is probably best - but without emphasising the worst-case scenario or trying to guess the future. She could mention, for example, how she worked during the pandemic and succeeded with her job (what you wrote in the second paragraph).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I strongly recommend to have a conversation about this with the supervision very soon. If the supervisor is going to be non-cooperative, the most convenient time to learn about this is now - because the cost of changing supervisor is going to be the lowest now.
An attempt to coerce the supervisor into providing reasonable accommodations via the disability office is not going to make for a pleasant experience. A good supervisor will do so much more than required of them that replicating this by invoking legal rights wouldn't work out well.
The conversation to be had with the supervisor now probably should stay rather general. The objective is just to figure out whether they are generally supportive and whether the nature of the research is compatible with the forseeable accomodations. Eg, as a mathematicians having days where you just can't isn't a much a problem; if your research involves tending for animals, clinical research, access to rare equipment, etc, it might be more difficult.
Also talking to the disability office is a good idea, too. They should know stuff like whether the university is offering counselling services to grad students, how to apply for more time for any kind of formal components, etc.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: In European countries psychological issues as well as illness are very private subjects most persons even supervisors or professors would feel uncomfortable knowing about. Not because of stigma but simply because it is none of their business. In Germany there are even laws prohibiting your employer from knowing what illness you have when you call in sick, for example.
The to-be PhD should talk about this with their therapist. Therapists know about these topics and should have an idea about how to play this game in this country; they have been to university themselves and just in case they know who to ask.
Disability office is about disabilities, afaik most psychological afairs do not legally qualify as disabilities, so it might be that they are entitled to help with psychological issues or not - again it depends on the country.
Maybe there is something similiar to a disabilities office explicitely for psychological counseling. It is also possible to contact the students' union for support or advice.
On the other hand it is understandable that you want to be transparent with the people you are going to work with... again, depending on the country and the scientific department in question, you could simply state that there is a private condition that might result in regular appointments or spontaneous sick leaves... Most people I know will accept this and even offer support, and not think about whether it is about a chronic illness or a psychological issue.
Keep on keeping on
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/13
| 953
| 4,139
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had a PhD interview (bioinformatics) a month ago. I was a master student during the time the interview happened and I am still a student.
During the interview I was asked when I officially want to submit my thesis as this is important to start doing the PhD. I told them the date I planned to submit my thesis.
I did not hear back from them after a month. Recently, I got an email from them indicating that they have not made the final decision yet. In the same email they are asking this question again, which is "When will you exactly submit your thesis? And as a proof can you send it to us before we make our final decision?".
I was also told that there were 13 other candidates and I felt like I had no chance as they would probably prefer somebody who has already completed their masters.
Does their last email imply that they are interested in hiring me but they want to be sure that I am not lying about finishing my thesis soon? Or is it just a normal process and does not indicate anything? In other words, am I right thinking that "they would not bother and directly reject me if they were not interested in hiring me"?
Also, my thesis is not yet fully complete (but I still plan to submit it at the date I promised to them). Would sending them the thesis too late cause my application to be rejected? What should I do in this case to increase the chance of acceptance as much as possible?
Update based on the comments: The PhD project starts in early October. I plan to submit my thesis in September. And they know that this is when I will submit the thesis. The start of the PhD cannot be delayed.<issue_comment>username_1: This seems more like they have a need for someone to start at some date certain and that the MS needs to be completed prior to that.
My suggestion, if you are worried about whether they think you are being honest with them is to put them in touch with your advisor who can give them assurance about your progress. I suggest this since you seem to be having correspondence with them generally. Give your advisor a heads-up about their concerns and your progress toward completion.
I would rather think they are quite interested or else they wouldn't make the effort to continue the conversation and would just choose another.
But, in the US, at least, applying for doctoral positions while still a student is the normal thing to do. Otherwise people would have a year or more gap between earning the MS and starting the doctoral studies.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Sure, of course it does, at least on the margins. If they have one spot and two nearly identical applications save for that detail, they will probably go for the one with an accepted thesis. Now, it's pretty rare to actually have nearly two identical candidates, usually there are pros and cons to each and in the end it is a judgement call that can't be fully justified by pure objectivity (if such a thing even exists when it comes to applying for positions).
If I had to guess, they have a more preferred candidate that they are waiting to hear an answer from, but that is a complete guess on my part. For me though, the length of time of no contact and getting this in an email:
>
> "When will you exactly submit your thesis? And as a proof can you send it to us before we make our final decision?".
>
>
>
... would make me believe that I'm not their most desired candidate. That certainly doesn't mean it's anywhere close to impossible that they chose you, but I would be downward adjusting my priors at that point.
But really there's no point in stressing yourself out about it, all you can do is complete your thesis as soon as possible and get it to them. If you think it's even close to a being presentable, I would email them a draft so they get an idea of where you are headed.
Note: this is from an American perspective where it is not at all unusual to get accepted into a PhD program sans MS. An alternative explanation is that they really do like you the best but a completed thesis is a necessary box to check before you can be accepted.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/13
| 677
| 2,962
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I get selected for an American/Canadian University for a masters in computer science as an international student for fall 2022 , but I decline to join the university due to some personal reasons. Will the university save my application details?
Could they deny me admission if I re-apply to the same university in the next year?
Furthermore, does any university provide a provision where I can defer the admission to the next year?<issue_comment>username_1: This seems more like they have a need for someone to start at some date certain and that the MS needs to be completed prior to that.
My suggestion, if you are worried about whether they think you are being honest with them is to put them in touch with your advisor who can give them assurance about your progress. I suggest this since you seem to be having correspondence with them generally. Give your advisor a heads-up about their concerns and your progress toward completion.
I would rather think they are quite interested or else they wouldn't make the effort to continue the conversation and would just choose another.
But, in the US, at least, applying for doctoral positions while still a student is the normal thing to do. Otherwise people would have a year or more gap between earning the MS and starting the doctoral studies.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Sure, of course it does, at least on the margins. If they have one spot and two nearly identical applications save for that detail, they will probably go for the one with an accepted thesis. Now, it's pretty rare to actually have nearly two identical candidates, usually there are pros and cons to each and in the end it is a judgement call that can't be fully justified by pure objectivity (if such a thing even exists when it comes to applying for positions).
If I had to guess, they have a more preferred candidate that they are waiting to hear an answer from, but that is a complete guess on my part. For me though, the length of time of no contact and getting this in an email:
>
> "When will you exactly submit your thesis? And as a proof can you send it to us before we make our final decision?".
>
>
>
... would make me believe that I'm not their most desired candidate. That certainly doesn't mean it's anywhere close to impossible that they chose you, but I would be downward adjusting my priors at that point.
But really there's no point in stressing yourself out about it, all you can do is complete your thesis as soon as possible and get it to them. If you think it's even close to a being presentable, I would email them a draft so they get an idea of where you are headed.
Note: this is from an American perspective where it is not at all unusual to get accepted into a PhD program sans MS. An alternative explanation is that they really do like you the best but a completed thesis is a necessary box to check before you can be accepted.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/13
| 537
| 2,273
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently got a desk rejection for a paper submitted to a journal. It was about as generic as a desk rejection form response can get: an "outside the scope of this journal" response; no personalized feedback at all. I was wondering whether to send a brief, polite thank-you.
I have searched around the Internet, and it seems opinions are kind of split with a slim majority saying if it's a desk rejection, don't respond at all. Some who advocate for that are quite adamant, saying it would be an inbox nightmare for editors if every desk rejectee sent a response, no matter how brief. But there were a few on the other side, saying it's always a good idea to send a (very brief) thank-you.
The boiler-plate response I got said that the journal hoped this would not discourage me from making future submissions. I was wondering if there have been any published surveys of journal editorial staff querying their reactions to replies to desk rejections. Does it affect their decision-making in future submissions from the same author?
Thank you very much.<issue_comment>username_1: This isn't necessary. Once a paper is desk rejected it's out of the journal's hands and likely their minds as well, since they have nothing more to do and are not expecting to have anything more to do.
Such a reply does say you have received the decision, but you kind of must have received the decision, since after all you submitted the paper using that email address. Not to say you can't send such a reply, it's just not necessary. The journal editor is likely to delete such a reply with no response.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It does not matter. There is no etiquette requirement that you should do so, but neither would it be unduly rude to send a note.
If the editor sees an e-mail from you, coming on the heels of a desk rejection, they will probably be pleasantly surprised when they start reading the e-mail and find that it is a short, polite note of thanks for their work—rather than the bitter complaint e-mail they were expecting. This might give the editor a quick smile, but you have also used up a certain amount of their time, and the smile will almost certainly be quickly forgotten as they move on with their workload.
Upvotes: 4
|
2021/07/14
| 1,405
| 5,695
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a grad student pursuing to Master's degree. My major is **Applied Mathematics**. Here I call my advisor **<NAME>**. (Not the real name)
The branch of math that Mr. Iggy researches is Algebraic Topology. As such, the undergraduate courses he opens include Algebra (I and II) and Topology (I and II). I took all such courses, yet there are always too few students that takes Topology II.
I declared early (when I was junior) that I would be a grad student under Mr. Iggy, and everyone in the department agreed. As a consequence, I was able to attend seminars opened by him early. So far, I attended two times.
In the first seminar, I made a presentation about Tychonoff's Theorem, which is outside of the scope of Topology II. In the second seminar, I made a presentation about the typeclasses of Haskell(the programming language)'s `Prelude`.
Soon I entered the grad school and became Mr. Iggy's student. In this year's first semester, I took his grad course, **Algebraic Topology I**. And in the next (second) semester, I will take **Computational Homotopy Theory**. In the meantime (this summer vacation), he will re-open his seminars. And this is where I have a problem.
Mr. Iggy advised me (and his other students) to prepare for taking Computational Homotopy Theory and share what I've studied, so his students will learn the course "well". I was quite doubtful of this because I had many topics I wanted to research on my own, and because I thought seminars were for sharing progresses of such researches. I told him this doubt, yet he just said "Seminars are just for learning," and "You won't be able to complete such researches when you're just in Master's course."
I'm quite confused as for the first quote. And as for the second quote, I can't figure out what he's expecting me to research when the department *lacks* Doctor's course. Should I just follow his instructions?<issue_comment>username_1: You are correct that seminar is *often* used for discussing research progress and looking for new approaches to research, but the term isn't universally used in that way. It can also mean a somewhat less formal course in which the students in the seminar present key elements related to the topic of the "seminar". The professor is there to evaluate and give feedback. I'll guess that he is using the term in this sense.
A seminar in the first sense would be peopled by those with very narrow interests and would usually have more than one professor and a few students. The professors might even outnumber the students and do much/most of the presentation and lead discussions. In the second sense of the term, there is probably one professor and the intent is to give students the "opportunity" to prepare and present topics so as to prepare them for a key factor of their future career.
I have been in seminars in the first sense a couple of times as a doctoral student but in the second sense only once, as an undergraduate.
Yes, it is good to follow the instructions of the professor. Your own research can be discussed separately with your advisor, who just happens to be the same person.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally speaking, the purpose of a *seminar* is to "disseminate knowledge". Now, depending on which kind of knowledge is being "disseminated", there can be two types of seminars: **research seminars** and **teaching seminars**. Regardless of their type, seminars can be beneficial for two distinct groups: the *presenter* and the *audience*.
**Research seminars**:
here, the purpose is showcasing one's own research - i.e., disseminate *new* knowledge. It is assumed that the audience has enough expertise to understand the content of the seminar - which is unlikely to happen if the audience is composed (mostly) of grad/undergrad-students. Benefits:
* the *presenter* can benefit by receiving interesting questions by the audience, which can help guide their future research; they can also benefit from potential collaboration requests from the audience. Of course, they can also benefit by receiving some sort of compensation.
* the *audience* can benefit by getting some inspiration for future research, by learning something new, or by "staying updated" with the current state of the art.
**Teaching seminars**:
here, the purpose is to disseminate *existing* knowledge to the audience - maybe as a digression from a given course main content. Benefits:
* the *presenter* can benefit either by compensation, or by the "spotlight" received during the seminar; of course, the benefit can also be the "fullfilment of one's duties".
* the *audience* will benefit by learning something that could expand their perspective on a given subject, e.g., some realistic applications of a course's topics, or some deeper analyses on some topics that would be otherwise difficult to explain (and to evaluate, due to their complexity) in the course.
---
To answer your question
-----------------------
you must decide which type of seminar you are going to hold. I assume it is a "teaching seminar", hence try to get the most out of it yourself (as the presenter), and try to also make sure that the audience gets the most out of it.
Finally, I want to clarify a misconception that you may have. In your post, you state:
>
> I had many topics I wanted to research on my own,
>
>
>
...although "any" form of research is "good", "good (and interesting) research" is the one where a person spends months, years or even decades (!) of time. Research does not mean "read a book that is not covered in a class and present its findings". This is what your advisor meant by his sentence.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/14
| 861
| 3,618
|
<issue_start>username_0: If a journal requires an acknowledgement section, but you have nothing to acknowledge, how is this put best?
"The authors have nothing to acknowledge."? This sounds a bit arrogant to me.
The [formatting instructions say](https://www.nature.com/documents/ncomms-formatting-instructions.pdf): "Must be brief and must not include thanks to Editors or referees, effusive comments or dedications." It is given as optional; yet, the editor asked for it for the second time now.<issue_comment>username_1: One possibility is simply to extend your gratitutde to the reviewers and the editors.
According to [this paper](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226727), the acknowledgement section can be quite hetereogeneous and can comprise the following sections. Perhaps you will find some inspiration here:
* Financial disclosure
* Conflict of interest
* Disclaimer (Ex.: "*The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.*")
* Ethics
* Peer communication (Ex.: "*NN provided insightful discussions*.")
* Investigation and Analysis
* Supervision and Management (Ex.: "*Research included in this review was partly completed at the University XYZ under the supervision of NN.*")
* Materials and Resources
* Writing
* Dissemination
* Organization (Ex.: "*The second author would like to thank Organization XYZ.*")
* Combination
* Vague or other (Ex.: "*We thank NN for their contribution during various stages of the paper preparation.*")
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Write
>
> This research has received no external funding.
>
>
>
or something along those lines - or simply respond to the editor that you have not received any external funding, and thus do not see the need for an acknowledgement section.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: When you don’t have anything to acknowledge, there is no logical reason to include an acknowledgements section. I speculate that almost no reputable journal will insist on you adding such a section, or, if they do insist because they do have some logical reason why they want such sections included, they will provide instructions what to write in the case when the author has no one to acknowledge.
In the case in question ([the link](https://www.nature.com/documents/ncomms-formatting-instructions.pdf) you posted in the comments), the acknowledgements section is explicitly indicated as “optional”. Since you say the editor asked about it, tell them you will not be including an acknowledgements section. I hardly see how the editor can go against their own journal’s official instructions to authors of what papers should include.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: ### tl;dr: Just ask the journal.
There is no reason to demonstrate your superior intelligence and conclusive skills in these situations; nor are *we* the best people to ask. Just write the journal's editor/secretariat/point-of-contact what *they* want, e.g. like so:
>
> About the submission requirement of an acknowledgement section: Can you clarify which kinds of acknowledgements are expected? I'll mention I have not received any external funding for the research underlying my paper, so there is no funding body I could acknowledge.
>
>
>
and they'll tell you what needs to be in there - if anything.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: If you have nothing to acknowledge then you could use the space to do a land acknowledgement or note that black lives matter. The journal may not like it but they could hardly say it's not an acknowledgement.
Upvotes: -1
|
2021/07/14
| 920
| 3,831
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a paper to one of the IEEE transaction journals and got an “Immediate Reject” (how it is stated in ScholarOne system) from the EiC. The motivation behind this decision included language issues (unfixed typos) and serious concerns about the level of novelty in the research (for illustration I’ve included numerous examples of how my proposed methodology passes into known cases).
Since then, I’ve majorly edited the paper broadening and expending the novelty part and deprecating the known cases.
But the thing is that most of the descriptive (introductory) part remains almost the same, includng the title.
If I am correct IEEE has a policy of two possible situations (when rejected): “Resubmission allowed” and “Resubmission is not allowed”.
But in this situation, I got no further guidance. Thus the questions are:
1. Can I submit a new version of the research to the same journal with the same title?
2. Does it make any sense to submit there again after having such a track record or I will be definitely rejected?<issue_comment>username_1: If they aren't clear about "resubmission not allowed" then you can do it, but make sure that you address the novelty issue primarily. They definitely won't publish things they don't find "interesting". The language issue can probably be resolved if not too severe and the novelty is good.
If you get immediately rejected again, try somewhere else. It shouldn't cost too much time.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Not sure about what *Immediate Reject* actually means
but I can share a datapoint.
I once submitted to one of IEEE journals and,
after an eternity of waiting, the editor wrote back,
saying that there are serious blah blah issues
so he decided not to assign any reviewer and reject it right away.
The editor, however, included a note that once we fix the blah blah issues,
we can resubmit and assign the same editor in the cover letter.
I wouldn't assume that (the absence of) this note is
the absolute judgement regarding whether you can resubmit or not.
After all, how are they going to punish you if you insist?
It's not like you plagiarize or use improper words in the manuscript.
What you should do, given that you really want to resubmit,
is to address every single issue in the editor's feedback.
From your username/profile I assume you came from math department.
In IEEE world, IMO, people care more about if your things are new
(*novel* in their language) more than how your things relate to old things.
They care so much about novelty that some authors tend to inflate that
and include salesman languages in title/abstract/introduction.
(E.g. *Pigeonhole Principle: a **Novel** Tool for Mathematical Counting*.)
The fact that you chose to emphasis the relation to past works is most
likely interpreted as the lack of novelty, which you really need to fix.
(Funny enough, my advisor was more upset than i was because
he'd never heard that an editor can reject without reviewers,
given that we are doing some serious stuff, not claiming P = NP.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If they haven't said you can't resubmit, then you can. Be sure to explain in your cover letter what has changed and why they should consider your paper now. Don't play dumb - the editorial management system is sure to flag your paper as a resubmission, and without such an explanation their default reaction is going to be "desk reject".
I'm kind of surprised you write that you "majorly edited the paper [by] broadening and expending the novelty part and deprecating the known cases" and yet "most of the descriptive (introductory) part remains almost the same". They desk rejected, which is a higher bar to fix than major revision. Submitting mostly the same paper will lead to another desk rejection.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/14
| 1,450
| 6,044
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was never a big fan of live online (research and technical) presentations, lectures or seminars. I'd use pre-recorded online materials when looking into a topic myself, but I was never able to immerse myself to a live online lecture anywhere close to the level of an live in-person lecture.
And this was never a problem. One course during my graduate programme became online-only last minute as the Lecturer decided to go for an academic visit to a different University. I dropped it (wasn't my top choice anyway) and replaced it with something else. On conferences, it was very rare, and every time a talk was delivered online, I could usually find an almost word-by-word pre-recorded version somewhere, and just go through it at my own pace and time.
For the above reasons, **I never really considered "following online presentations" as a crucial skill in my academic career**. (And my progress reflected that.) I think I can passably *give* a presentation online myself, but I lose my concentration way faster trying to follow an online presentation than an in-person one. I can identify **several reasons for why I find this to be difficult** for me:
* *I can not put my computer away as I'm using it to watch the presentation.*
* There's no "setting change" between my "work space" and the space where I listen to a talk.
* Even with the most comfortable and quality headphones, prolonged listening to *presenters* (people talking rather than music) on headphones gives me at least a mild headache.
* I'm already self-conscious about asking questions, and I don't think I can get them across half as well in writing: they either sound clunky or unclear to me, so I'll avoid asking questions.
And then, **enter the global pandemic**. Everything shifted online for over a year now, with some very mixed reactions from the community. Some think that online and hybrid approachers "work well".
But they really really don't, for me. **Up until this point, my attitude was grin and bear it while we have no other choice, and then jump right back into the real, in-person thing when we can** (maybe, jump really slowly and carefully at first, through small local events etc...). I think that it was the best possible stop-gap solution, but that it lacks the most valuable part of in-person meetings, which is the unstructured mingling before and after the talks. But more and more people are lauding the great success of hybrid events. So the title question: **is the ability to follow online presentations now an essential skill in academia?**
While I list the reasons I would find this difficult, I did many difficult things in my life already, especially when I set my mind to it. Note that I'm not looking for advice on *how to concentrate during online events* -- advice on that has proliferated since the start of the pandemic. I'm not asking if it's "just" useful either -- the ability to do long sums in your head can sure be useful if you're working in maths, but probably not crucial. To avoid sounding like I'm asking for an opinion, **I am interested in whether there's any evidence that progress in one's academic career might be severely impacted or impossible without this ability in the post-pandemic research landscape.**.<issue_comment>username_1: If they aren't clear about "resubmission not allowed" then you can do it, but make sure that you address the novelty issue primarily. They definitely won't publish things they don't find "interesting". The language issue can probably be resolved if not too severe and the novelty is good.
If you get immediately rejected again, try somewhere else. It shouldn't cost too much time.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Not sure about what *Immediate Reject* actually means
but I can share a datapoint.
I once submitted to one of IEEE journals and,
after an eternity of waiting, the editor wrote back,
saying that there are serious blah blah issues
so he decided not to assign any reviewer and reject it right away.
The editor, however, included a note that once we fix the blah blah issues,
we can resubmit and assign the same editor in the cover letter.
I wouldn't assume that (the absence of) this note is
the absolute judgement regarding whether you can resubmit or not.
After all, how are they going to punish you if you insist?
It's not like you plagiarize or use improper words in the manuscript.
What you should do, given that you really want to resubmit,
is to address every single issue in the editor's feedback.
From your username/profile I assume you came from math department.
In IEEE world, IMO, people care more about if your things are new
(*novel* in their language) more than how your things relate to old things.
They care so much about novelty that some authors tend to inflate that
and include salesman languages in title/abstract/introduction.
(E.g. *Pigeonhole Principle: a **Novel** Tool for Mathematical Counting*.)
The fact that you chose to emphasis the relation to past works is most
likely interpreted as the lack of novelty, which you really need to fix.
(Funny enough, my advisor was more upset than i was because
he'd never heard that an editor can reject without reviewers,
given that we are doing some serious stuff, not claiming P = NP.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If they haven't said you can't resubmit, then you can. Be sure to explain in your cover letter what has changed and why they should consider your paper now. Don't play dumb - the editorial management system is sure to flag your paper as a resubmission, and without such an explanation their default reaction is going to be "desk reject".
I'm kind of surprised you write that you "majorly edited the paper [by] broadening and expending the novelty part and deprecating the known cases" and yet "most of the descriptive (introductory) part remains almost the same". They desk rejected, which is a higher bar to fix than major revision. Submitting mostly the same paper will lead to another desk rejection.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/14
| 1,796
| 7,789
|
<issue_start>username_0: I worked at an institution on a project for 5 years. The type of project I worked on usually results in a single published paper at the end of it. However, I left the institution before the project's end.
I now find out the PI has published the paper (2 years after my departure) with a long list of authors who have spent far less time working on the project than myself.
Upon contacting the PI (lead author), they said that I was out of contact after I left the institution and:
>
> *Since publication requires the agreement of all co-authors, we could not add on anyone who we could not contact. As we were preparing the paper, the project manager tried to contact you in various ways, all without success. As a result, we could not add you as a co-author.*
>
>
>
* Note1: It appears they do not dispute my contribution or authorship!
* Note2: I have an email exchange with the project manager 1.5 years before paper submission, and an email exchange with the PI 1 month after paper acceptance which is 7 months before paper publication. In neither of those exchanges the paper submission is mentioned. Nor did I receive any emails regarding the paper from them. I suspect they did not try to contact me at all regarding the paper!
My questions are,
1. Can lack of contact be a valid reason not to include the name of an author during submission?
2. Can the list of authors be amended now, after publication, to include myself? And how can this be done?
3. Is omitting an author considered a 'Scientific misconduct' or 'plagiarism'?
Edit:
* I am not in academica anymore
* I want my name on the paper as I have spent five years of my life on this project.
* Before I leave I sent every one my gmail account as a forwarding address. And all my subsequent exchanges was and is with the same gmail address.<issue_comment>username_1: Inclusion as an author of a paper is field- and research-group-dependent. Here is [one example](https://tos.org/oceanography/article/the-2-out-of-3-rule-for-authorship) from Oceanography, which suggests a "2 out of 3" rule, where you are expected to contribute to two out of three of (1) ideas, (2) analyses, and (3) writing to be considered for authorship.
Although you don't provide enough detail to understand the circumstances of your case, it sounds like there was an expectation but no official written policy for what level of contribution was expected to be included as an author. It also sounds like you didn't know in advance what would happen if you left the project before it was finished. If you're still in academia, I would suggest this is a lesson for the future, and you should always know what is the publication policy for your research group. Without having a clear policy, it is difficult to answer your questions (1) or (3), but in general it is not reasonable to expect that research would remain unpublished if somebody who contributed just drops out of the face of the earth (I'm not saying you did, but they are saying you did). The show must go on, etc.
For the specifics of your case, and if you wanted to press the case further, you could ask the PI for the evidence that they tried to contact you about the paper (surely they'd have an email), and/or you could contact the editor of the journal with this grievance, but I suspect it is highly unlikely your name could be added to the paper once published.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. Not in and of itself. However, if you're hard to contact, it might motivate people to change the paper so that it no longer contains any contributions from you, and ship that paper, without you on it. That's reasonable, if none of your work went into the modified paper. What they shouldn't do is write papers that involve your contributions without your say-so and without including you as an author - that's misconduct.
2. Doubtful, even if the paper does include your contributions. If it does, and you're willing to pursue the nuclear option, you could in principle write to the editor of the journal and ask them to retract the paper. That may or may not work, but will make the PI hate you, if you still care. It also still won't get you on the paper (that ship has likely sailed).
3. Not giving authorship to someone whose contributions have met the threshold for authorship (assuming yours have) is scientific misconduct. It's not plagiarism - they didn't copy text you'd published in another paper.
For what it's worth, I would have some sympathy for your former lab in at least the following situations:
1. The paper depends at least somewhat on your contributions (you meet the threshold for co-authorship). They try repeatedly to contact you, but you don't bother to reply to them. They have no prior reason to think you wouldn't want the paper published, and it's to your benefit if it is published. They publish the paper, giving you appropriate credit for your contributions. This isn't great behaviour as far as the wider community is concerned (\*), because it misrepresents your involvement in the paper and willingness to take responsibility for it, but I would have some sympathy for them - they were at least trying to do the right thing by you, even though you caused them a problem.
2. A paper can be written that doesn't rely on your contributions. Having not heard back from you, they publish it, without you as a co-author. You feel annoyed because you did a lot of work that could have gone into the paper and made it better, but it didn't. In this situation, they haven't done anything formally wrong. Maybe you could have replied, maybe they didn't try hard enough to contact you, whatever, but they're in the clear. You and they might need to work out some issues, but it's not a problem for the wider community to solve.
(\*) Which is to say, you should avoid doing this yourself. It's particularly egregious in certain fields, e.g. medical ones, but bad behaviour in any field. That said, I would personally feel a bit sorry for them because of the situation you'd put them in.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If someone has done enough work to qualify as an author if they would only complete some late-stage steps like helping to draft the manuscript/review the final manuscript, then their coauthors have a duty to offer that person to be included in those steps. It's not fair to purposefully prevent someone from fulfilling a key criteria for authorship in order to leave them off the list.
However, I do not think it's reasonable to expect that coauthors not publish work because they cannot reach a colleague who has completed some but not all requirements for authorship. They should possibly be acknowledged instead, though some are also concerned about acknowledging people without their permission.
It's not clear what exactly has happened here. It seems you did not receive any contact, but it's hard to judge the scope of the effort that was made to contact you. Given you did have contact with the person who supposedly reached out to you both before the acceptance and with the PI afterwards, it seems they were aware of contact information that could reach you. I agree that makes things suspicious, but maybe less so if, for example, the latter exchange was initiated by you rather than the PI, and if the former exchange was over an email address you no longer use.
It's unlikely the list of authors can be amended except by some serious steps likely involving retracting the original paper. Yes, it would be academic misconduct to leave an author off, but you should think carefully about what your goals are in pursuing this serious accusation. I'd start by asking what methods were used to contact you, given your previous email contacts with the project manager.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/14
| 1,337
| 5,812
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in biosciences the U.K. and I am almost about to finish. I have a great relationship with my supervisor and overall they have supported me very well.
However, there are some things I think that he could have done which would have improved the experience; for example, going to a conference with them and introducing me to other experts in the field. Most of them are small points, but I think they would help any future students they have.
Given I am only a PhD student, I am hesitant to go to them with a checklist of improvements they need to make as a supervisor. Therefore, my question is, what is the best way to approach an advisor to offer advice on how they could improve their supervision without making myself sound too arrogant, or without giving unasked advice? Is there a way that would come off as being helpful rather than critical?<issue_comment>username_1: I think most of how to approach this depends far too much on your individual relationship, which no one here can know as well as you.
However, one general rule to keep in mind would be to stick to talking about **things that would/could have helped you** rather than **things they did wrong/"need" to change**.
You can even keep quite distant from their actions by simply talking about things you wish you had without mentioning their role at all.
For example, you could express that you wish you had been able to interact with more experts at other institutions through conferences earlier in your PhD career. You could ask them for advice now, or for retrospective advice ("what should I have done to have these opportunities?"). This makes it less of an accusative conversation and more of a collaborative one. Maybe your advisor will on their own offer suggestions of ways they could have helped with this, and it'll keep it in their mind for future students. Depending on your relationship, you may be able to state more directly how they could have helped, but I'd start the conversation first so it is about *you and your goals* rather than about them.
In general, and I've said this on other Q&As here as well, people in general don't like being *told what to do*, but they do like *helping other people with their goals*. "I need help meeting potential future post doc advisors" is a very similar ask to "introduce me to other professors", but they come off completely differently. Sometimes people may surprise you by not helping you the way you thought they might, but getting you to your goal in a different way. If that's your true goal, rather than getting them to behave a certain way, you still get what you wanted.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Since you are (I guess) not an expert on supervision you may not offer advice on supervision. However, **you are an expert on getting supervised by your advisor**, so you are the best qualified person to give **feedback** about how the supervision went.
So my advice about this would be: Ask your advisor if they would appreciate some *feedback* about the process of supervision. Moreover, I totally agree with what username_1 wrote: Focus on your experience.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Some departments do exit interviews with graduating students. This is another venue where you can give feedback about your experience (with your advisor and elsewhere) via a 3rd party (sometimes it's the chair, or another professor doing the exit interview). Going to conferences with your advisor is a great point, and something that all the students in your department might benefit from not just those under the same advisor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: This a tough situation to be in. During my Ph.D studies I was lucky with my supervisor who actively engaged with me in my research. A friend of mine was unfortunate with his supervisor. About half way through the supervisor became heavily involved in a new discovery in his field and all but forgot his student. He was very difficult to engage with and my friend struggled for a while.
Personally, trying to give them 'advice' is not the way to approach this; you are of course the underling. First off I would try and work out why you don't get the support you require? Are you prepared when you meet him/her, is the research going well, are you approachable. You need to definitely make the right approach here and appeal to their vanity and ego. The most important thing to realise is that you don't know everything, you are keen to learn from their experience and any time you can get you should be grateful, take on board what they have to say and make sure that the supervisor knows this. Going to them saying, 'ahh can I give you some advice, you need to pay more attention to me....' can only make things worse.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Other answers focus on giving feedback on what would have helped you, and this is great advice. Additionally, you could frame the feedback to help junior members of the group. This is gives actionable advice that can be put to use now, which is more likely to have an impact.
>
> Student X would benefit from attending conference Y with you. I would have benefited from meeting scholar Z earlier in my studies, and I bet they would too.
>
>
>
Often junior researchers have better relationships with each other than their senior collaborators. Through talking to other students you might know of things that would have helped you, and will help others. Or you might notice a junior student who has different needs than you, and you could offer advice on how to help them succeed.
>
> I was very independent, but I don't think the other students work as well in isolation. They could make better progress, if you met with them once or twice per week.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/14
| 1,327
| 5,879
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:**
I am writing a paper analysing various organisations that I need to de-identify.
For my analysis I need to cite three types of sources:
1. Publicly available published works that identify the organisations (e.g. reports by the organisation, peer reviewed works that assess the performance of the organisation, etc)
2. Interviews I have conducted with the organisations where I need to de-identify the organisations.
3. Personal correspondence (emails) with the organisations where I need to de-identify the organisations.
For the sake of explanation, **lets pretend that "Organisation A" is Google** (in actuality this report has nothing to do with Google). I have undertaken an interview with Google (that needs to be de-identified per ethics approval), had personal correspondence by email with Google (that needs to be de-identified) and also I want to cite public reports Google has published.
**The problems:**
When combining these three types of sources I end up writing sentences like this:
>
> "Organisation A performed well against validity metrics (interview
> with Organisation A), sufficiently against accuracy metrics (personal
> correspondence with Organisation A) but poorly against correctness
> metrics (Google et al., 2020).
>
>
>
Problems with that include:
1. When I am analysing publicly available sources alongside interviews I essentially re-identify the organisation. It is obvious in the above sentence that Organisation A is Google.
2. These sentences are really ugly with all the interjections of "(personal correspondence with Organisation A, 2021)" and "(interview with Organisation A, 2021)".
**The questions:**
1. How should I deal with citing these three types of sources without re-identifying organisations?
2. Is there a citation style that will make this less ugly? Maybe something where personal correspondence and interviews can be references with a superscript or similar? At the moment I am using Vancouver and I don't think it is the best choice.
Thank you kindly for your assistance.
**Edit: clarification - even though I know that it is not necessary to reference your own interviews in the text of your study (i.e. interviews that have been undertaken pursuant to a description in the methods section), I would still like to find a notation style that allows me to intermingle interviews, personal correspondence and public documents in a way that is visually clean but also shows where information has come from (i.e. not ugly in the way I have described above). This issue is almost separate and apart from the issue of deidentifying sources.**<issue_comment>username_1: #### You don't need to cite your "data" every time you mention it
Assuming it is okay to identify the institutions in your study, I would recommend that you cite the published reports and other public works from these organisations (using standard citations), but for the remaining material you can consider this as part of your "data" and you can just mention how it was collected in your methodology and not cite it each time. The results of the interviews you conducted, and any correspondence dealing with follow-up questions are essentially just the recorded "data" for your project. You should save this material in an appropriate form with your institution, and it should be available to researchers on an appropriate basis having regard to privacy, etc. (which might preclude access).
For example, in your methodology section you would describe the interviews you conducted in sufficient detail for the reader to understand the methodology; it would then go without saying that the results in the interviews are recorded in your data for the project and you would have no need to cite any source when you set out the results of the interviews.
If you want to completely de-identify the institutions then you would not give citations to their policy documents, but you would note that internal policy documents were the source of the metrics (and in your internal data you would record the sources of each of the metrics for your own use). Alternatively, if it is okay to identify the organisations in the study, but you want to de-identify their results (so you give results that are not matched with organisations), you would cite their materials in your methodology section to establish the relevant metrics, etc., but you would then de-identify in your results; you would have no need to re-cite those sources there. If the internal policy documents are quite voluminous (and I can imagine they would be) you could put your citations in the methodology section in a table. For example, you might do something like this:
>
> **Methodology**
>
>
> We did a series of interviews with employees at ten institutions: Google, Apple, IBM, ... . Performance metrics were taken from internal policy documents at those institutions; see Table X for sources for each institution. Questions for our interviews are shown in Appendix B; these were supplemented by correspondence to clarify policies, metrics, etc., where needed.
>
>
> *Then later...*
>
>
> **Results**
>
>
> For purposes of de-identification we have randomly assigned our organisations as Organisations A-J, and they are described with these labels in the results and discussion. ...
>
>
> Organisation A performed well against validity metrics, sufficiently against accuracy metrics, but poorly against correctness metrics.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the responses above. Once you identified and cited the sources of the data, statistical/qualitative results don't need citations because you found them.
In terms of the citation style, I think you are asking the wrong question. Whatever journal you plan to submit the article, you should follow their instruction about the style.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/15
| 1,152
| 4,954
|
<issue_start>username_0: My sister's studying at a UK university remotely because of COVID. Each course has an internal online Q&A forum for students to ask questions, and instructors or students to answer. I don't want to divulge any more detail for the purpose of confidentiality.
The issue is that 2 particularly hotheaded students don't actually answer the question asked — let's call them Gunners. This is cumbersome because:
1. my sister must add a comment, asking an instructor to answer the question.
2. These Gunners' useless answers can mislead instructors astray and away. She notices that instructors prioritize unanswered questions, and disregard questions that a student putatively answered.
She doesn't know why these Gunners spree to answer - perhaps they are bored by COVID, or they want to impress the instructors. But she wants to tactfully request that the Gunners:
1. stop answering her questions. She wants solely instructors to answer them.
2. answer a question only when they are absolutely certain they read the question properly, and their answer is correct.
**How could she best formulate such a request?**
Here's an example of a useless answer. My sister asked
>
> Does anyone have access LexisNexis or WestLaw for ***Canada and the USA*** for free? I already know that our library offers free access just to LexisNexis and Westlaw UK - I'm not asking about this.
>
>
>
One of these Gunners answered
>
> Hi! Yes. Our library has links to LexisNexis and WestLaw for free. I hope this helps!
>
>
>
Obviously this doesn't answer her question, because she already knows about the libary's free links the UK versions of LexisNexis and WestLaw. She wants the North American versions!<issue_comment>username_1: #### You don't need to cite your "data" every time you mention it
Assuming it is okay to identify the institutions in your study, I would recommend that you cite the published reports and other public works from these organisations (using standard citations), but for the remaining material you can consider this as part of your "data" and you can just mention how it was collected in your methodology and not cite it each time. The results of the interviews you conducted, and any correspondence dealing with follow-up questions are essentially just the recorded "data" for your project. You should save this material in an appropriate form with your institution, and it should be available to researchers on an appropriate basis having regard to privacy, etc. (which might preclude access).
For example, in your methodology section you would describe the interviews you conducted in sufficient detail for the reader to understand the methodology; it would then go without saying that the results in the interviews are recorded in your data for the project and you would have no need to cite any source when you set out the results of the interviews.
If you want to completely de-identify the institutions then you would not give citations to their policy documents, but you would note that internal policy documents were the source of the metrics (and in your internal data you would record the sources of each of the metrics for your own use). Alternatively, if it is okay to identify the organisations in the study, but you want to de-identify their results (so you give results that are not matched with organisations), you would cite their materials in your methodology section to establish the relevant metrics, etc., but you would then de-identify in your results; you would have no need to re-cite those sources there. If the internal policy documents are quite voluminous (and I can imagine they would be) you could put your citations in the methodology section in a table. For example, you might do something like this:
>
> **Methodology**
>
>
> We did a series of interviews with employees at ten institutions: Google, Apple, IBM, ... . Performance metrics were taken from internal policy documents at those institutions; see Table X for sources for each institution. Questions for our interviews are shown in Appendix B; these were supplemented by correspondence to clarify policies, metrics, etc., where needed.
>
>
> *Then later...*
>
>
> **Results**
>
>
> For purposes of de-identification we have randomly assigned our organisations as Organisations A-J, and they are described with these labels in the results and discussion. ...
>
>
> Organisation A performed well against validity metrics, sufficiently against accuracy metrics, but poorly against correctness metrics.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the responses above. Once you identified and cited the sources of the data, statistical/qualitative results don't need citations because you found them.
In terms of the citation style, I think you are asking the wrong question. Whatever journal you plan to submit the article, you should follow their instruction about the style.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/15
| 1,245
| 5,274
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am reviewing a paper 'X' that is heavily built on an existing paper 'Y'. The paper Y is available on arXiv; however, it has not been peer-reviewed yet. It is only 4 months since it has been available on arXiv.
As a reviewer, is that my responsibility to verify the claims made in paper Y? or should I simply assume that to be correct and on that basis review paper X?<issue_comment>username_1: Given that refereeing is a voluntary and little rewarded task, I don't think it is fair to demand verifying more than the paper at hand. The report should make clear what the referee knows and what they don't know. E.g., it could read:
*The paper under review contains interesting new results, and the proofs are (to the best of judgement) correct. They do, however, rely substantially on results from the preprint Y which I have not read in detail. Should Y contain a substantial mistake, this could easily invalidate most of the results in the paper under review.*
The ball is then with the editor to make a choice. Wait for Y to be published? Go ahead? Gather more information?
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Actually, it would be a bit dangerous to assume that a paper on arXiv is correct. If you want to give more than a pro forma review then you need to look at the earlier paper to at least get an idea of its correctness.
If anything stands out as problematic then it will certainly affect whether you can recommend acceptance of this paper.
Alternatively you can just reject the review and tell the editor that the earlier paper needs to be validated first, delaying a proper review of this one.
---
For a conference submission, which has a firm deadline, I suggest passing the responsibility back to the Program Chair. They can, perhaps, offer advice. But it is their responsibility to put the program together in a timely way. Just give them whatever information you can to help them do their job. Heroic efforts are not required of reviewers, but a PC might just have a hero reviewer in reserve for hard cases. It may be that the situation you describe just means that this paper isn't yet "ripe" enough for this conference. The PC may be conservative in their judgement to preserve the integrity of the conference or might go "all out" to get a proper (complete) review. But that is their responsibility.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> As a reviewer, is that my responsibility to verify the claims made in
> paper Y? or should I simply assume that to be correct and on that
> basis review paper X?
>
>
>
Neither.
It is your duty to verify the claims in paper X. Paper Y has not been peer-reviewed, and even if peer-reviewed you should know before hand if it holds true, no "assumption" here.
In theory and in an ideal world, if it has been peer reviewed it has been accepted by the community and it is part of the state-of-art knowledge on the topic[1].
Reference to paper Y are absolutely needed? if yes then the paper message is not adequately supported. If not, they should not appear in the paper, but they should belong in the acknowledgments (maybe the authors of X are trying to show they are not trying to copy work done by someone else, because they are just extending on the idea published in Y and they want to explicitly mention this).
[1] yes, the reviewer has such an extreme important role. Don't take it lightly.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Good question. I provide two points of view:
a) According to the scientific community, anything not peer-reviewed is non-verified. Thus, you could reject the paper because it builds on non-verified sources. Building on non-verified (=non peer-reviewed) claims violates "the code of conduct" for research. In computer science, this "code of conduct" is not even known to everyone, but in other disciplines even conference papers are considered as non-properly reviewed and a poor source. The authors should have been aware of this. It is certainly not on you to review two papers, but, in practice, I often end up reading multiple papers for a review, e.g. to assess contributions of a paper or to verify claims of a paper.
b) Many high-quality papers get published on arxiv.org and they are also cited a lot. While arxiv.org does not do any real reviewing, they do a very lightweight check of publications (e.g. is it copy&paste from somewhere else...) and they ensure that only members of reputable institutions can publish there. The average quality of an arxiv.org paper is arguably at least the level of a lower quality conference or journal. Furthermore, many reviewers only conduct "coarse" sanity checks. My guess is that less than 50% of issues in technical details (proofs) are caught by reviews. So, building upon an arxiv.org paper is arguably as good as using other sources.
What is the recommendation?
If it is a high profile conference/journal and the paper's claims require the non-peer reviewed source to be correct, you should probably reject it.
If you want to play it safe, reject.
If the claims are non-essential and it is a really good paper, you might give it a chance, you could lower your rating because of this and also state the issue clearly in the review as others suggested.
Upvotes: -1
|
2021/07/15
| 612
| 2,668
|
<issue_start>username_0: There's an unpublished paper I'd like to include in my CV list that I haven't yet submitted for publication (because I'm waiting for a conference that will open submissions later this year).
Is there an appropriate phrase intermediary to "Draft in Progress" and "Under Review" that I can use in the bibliographic entry? I'm not sure "Draft in Progress" is itself appropriate, because technically the draft is complete.<issue_comment>username_1: "Work in Progress" is pretty common and generally acceptable. You could make it a bit more specific if you like if you have an immediate need to send out a CV.
"Work in Progress" is actually a good section to include in a CV since it implies that you are currently active. Such a section with a firm title for a paper will probably give readers the correct impression about where you are.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your paper is a *preprint*.
What you plan to do with it in the future is not relevant, or appropriate to include in your CV, in my humble opinion. It is generally assumed that authors of preprints are planning to submit their papers for publication, so listing your paper as “scheduled for submission”, or similar, will add nothing and make you seem clueless or insecure. [The rule for (academic) CVs](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/57842/40589) is you brag about things you have accomplished in the past, not things you plan to accomplish in the future.
What’s much more important than your plans for submitting the paper is what it contains. So if the norms of your field allow you to include a link to a downloadable copy of the paper, I’d recommend doing that.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I think it's fine to include projects on a CV that haven't been peer reviewed with a parenthetical that they are "submitted" or "in progress", *especially for early-career researchers* like undergraduate students. It's a bit weird when professors with a longer CV include these projects, but I doubt many people really count it against them (and some funding agencies will consider them progress), they just will know and understand not to consider those finished published projects, because, well, they aren't.
You, however, have a preprint available for others to read, so you don't need to make any note about it being under review or anything: just include it as a preprint with all the citation information pointing to the preprint archive version of the paper. I've seen CVs that split these out into a separate section and those that mix them with other papers. If you want to be completely transparent I think a separate section is good.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/15
| 1,323
| 5,919
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an Arab, and I am not fluent in English, not even my mother tongue, and I am sure that my scientific research will have many serious linguistic errors. Can the magazine accept the research or ask me to amend the research despite the many errors in the language<issue_comment>username_1: In my field of expertise, it is common that when the submitted manuscript returns to the author the first time, the reviewers point out the grammatical mistakes and typographical errors, together with their analysis of the whole manuscript content.
Sometimes, if there are too many errors, they'll ask for the author to ask help to a native in order to sort the English out. However, I can't recall a case of a downright rejection of the manuscript solely because of that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Errors in writing come in many forms. Those that merely irritate pedants are less of a problem than those that impair understanding.
Since the purpose of publishing research is to inform others, it's crucial that what is published is clear enough to understand. That doesn't necessarily require grammatical perfection (and few even approach such perfection in their native languages), but it does require a certain level of proficiency in writing in addition to a lot of care.
Reviewers evaluate multiple aspects of papers, and if they find the writing in a work difficult to follow or they fear others will find it difficult to follow, it's their responsibility to report that to the editor, and indeed this can mean a manuscript is not publishable in its present form.
I am a native English speaker and publish in English, but I would never do so without having someone else read my writing first to offer suggestions for improvement. I doubt there are many people that can write clear manuscripts with ease on the first draft, so I'd strongly recommend you find others to help you with your writing before submitting for publication.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Grammatical perfection is not required for acceptance. However, grammatical errors are distracting to read, and if frequent enough can make the paper difficult to understand. Reviewers may be harsher in their opinions of a paper that is difficult to read.
Furthermore, assuming your paper gets accepted, you probably want others to read it. Do you want people to associate your name with a paper that has grammatical errors?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Not only can it, it very often does. I can often tell if an article was written by Chinese researchers without looking at the author list, because they often use "the" in cases when the noun is supposed to be indefinite and vice versa. This usually does not take away from the content, and is a minor nuisance at best.
There are some journals that actually offer services to help with any language issues, for instance [Springer Nature Author Services](https://authorservices.springernature.com/).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Technically "YES". But you'll have a hard time when you have reviewers. It's not easy to really evaluate when the manuscript you send doesn't make sense or doesn't sound precise enough. Most journals have author services that act as translators.
Additionally, you can also use something like [Grammarly](https://app.grammarly.com/). I personally use it for doing the detailed passes for any manuscript I'm working on now. However, keep in mind that it cannot write the paper for you, so if you don't start with precise scientific/report language, it can't help you much.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It is relatively easy to learn to read another language. It takes more study & practice to be able to understand spoken language. It takes even more study & practice to become a *fluent* speaker or *writer* of another language.
For a casual conversation as a tourist, minimal fluency is fine because the impact is minimal. For a collaboration, where you will be working with others for months or years, moderate fluency is fine because you will quickly learn the key things that you need to know to communicate in the other language, and the other people will likely learn some of your language too, unless you have multiple people involved with 3 or more native languages and a single language (e.g., English for most scientific fields) in common that nobody speaks natively.
But writing a journal article (or a blog or a newspaper article or anything in between) for a large audience (large being a relative term - 100 top people in your field is large when the rest of the time you are working with 2 or 3 of them) requires clear and accurate language to be successful.
My recommendation is to find a colleague - either someone else at your own institution (even if they are in a slightly different field) or at another institution (in your field of expertise) who is a native or very long-time English speaker. Have them work *with* you to help write the paper. Unless it is a traditional collaboration (i.e., the other person is in the same field and helping with the actual research), you write the first draft and have them review, correct & critique it. That includes spelling and punctuation errors and simple grammatical errors. But it also includes stylistic errors - the types of problems that are not *technically* incorrect but which would *instantly* make a reader think *the author is not a native speaker*. You are **not** trying to fool anyone - your CV will make it clear who you are anyway. But having really top-quality language will help the readers concentrate on the content and not be distracted by the mechanics.
If the person who helps is in the same field then, field and amount of effort dependent of course, they may merit being listed as a co-author. If they are in an entirely different field then listing in acknowledgements is likely more appropriate.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/16
| 765
| 3,118
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a very bad undergraduate percentage (BSc maths, 58.3%) and from a no-name university. Mostly because I was not interested in pure mathematics and gave all my time to CS components of the course. However, I worked hard and got admitted to one of the best research institute in India (CMI) for MSc CS and maintained a consistent A grade. I also bagged some good internships at very prestigious Indian institutes (IIT-K, ISI). I was also offered PhD position in CS at both CMI and ISI last year.
I wish to join PhD outside India mainly due to stipend (very low in India, wont be enough for a family of 3). However, my BSc marks keep haunting me and often leave me very disappointed.
What are my chances to make it to a good university (<300 rank) in US or European countries? How much does BSc marks matter for a PhD candidate?
Also, should I take a PhD position at a low rank institute (~700 rank) if the professor is well known and has very high research throughput?
Also what rank and how many colleges should I apply to to maximise my applied-accepted ratio?
Thank you very much for giving it time to read.<issue_comment>username_1: I can't speak much for the US, mainly Europe.
From my understanding the professors are frequently not too much interested in your grades (particularly in maths/CS). It is more important that you show that you looked at that professor's research. That you are interested in the research ideas conducted at that chair, that you understand the implications of that research.
Let's say you are interested in machine learning approaches, but apply at a chair for analysis - that will not fit!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Ph.D. programs look for one main thing: **Research.**
Have you conducted research in CS during your Master's degree, and did you present a paper in a conference? This will make a significantly more positive impact on your profile, than the negative impact of poor grades.
Further, your poor grades were during your B.Sc degree. You have since completed a Master's degree in CS, and did quite well in terms of grades. Your B.Sc grades will not make any real difference, if you show evidence of research potential. This is through publications/presentations and other projects you have undertaken. If you wish to offer additional evidence that the B.Sc grades do not reflect your academic potential, a line in your Statement of Purpose should suffice. **Don't go overboard on this, it really isn't necessary.**
Read [this comprehensive community wiki answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/38238/136193) for more on how the admissions process works for Ph.D. programs in the US. **You have other things to think about,** things that are much more important than your grades. You need to think about obtaining letters of recommendation, drafting a well-written Statement of Purpose that provides evidence of your research and academic potential, and so on. Your B.Sc grades are among the least important things in a Ph.D. application when you have already completed a Master's degree with good grades.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/16
| 1,777
| 6,744
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a first year PhD student. I have been invited to give a talk at a student society in my own university (so no travel costs, etc). I am wondering whether I should ask for a small fee when giving the talk. Some points:
* I have been an organiser at other student societies, and generally we wouldn't pay when professors gave a talk with us, but we would invite them to dinner ([prepandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19)). There was someone who asked to be paid (she said she always charges) and we agreed (she is a public figure).
* Obviously it may seem a bit arrogant that I (only a PhD student) ask for a fee, but during my undergraduate studies I gave quite a few student talks / seminars for other students (for free), so I have become a bit of a big name on campus, and I believe my talks are good.
* I have been paid by the university when giving a sample lecture about my area of research to prospective students, and also when helping out at other outreach events.
* It's a student society after all (not a conference), so I am not sure it would look particularly great on my CV, especially given that I already have quite a few of these on my CV (albeit I wasn't invited).
* The society is about the *ethics* of X, where X is my field. I have been an advocate of ethical considerations of my field (usually ignored), so I am flattered to have been invited and I genuinely care about this.
* I generally enjoy giving talks.
* But it takes me time, and obviously my research, my teaching, and my personal life also require a lot of time.
* It takes me about 24 hours to prepare a good talk (for example, six evenings). ((Is this way too much time?)).
Should I give the talk? Should I ask for some fee?<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest to not ask a fee. It's a student society, and having served in the board of one, budget was always tight. Talks by PhDs and professors were always good since students could learn a lot and it was easy to organize and almost everybody was willing to talk about what they were doing, and always with a bottle of wine (or something non-alcoholic where appropriate) as 'payment'.
Regarding spending 24 hours on a talk - that seems like too much for a small gig at the student society. You know your field/research, and you probably have a feeling on the ethics around it, so it should be relatively easy to come up with what you want to say. I'd spend at most four hours on it, for a 30-45 minute talk. Two hours of structuring my contents, and two hours for creating the slides.
[Thanks avid](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/171168/do-academics-charge-for-talks-at-student-societies-as-a-phd-student-should-i-a/171173#comment461575_171173) - For a PhD student, you should take into account your funding and whether you can spend your working hours on this, or if you should do this in your free time.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I have been paid by the university when giving a sample lecture about
> my area of research to prospective students, and also when helping out
> at other outreach events.
>
>
>
If I read it correctly, it means those events were beyond your duty stated in the contract, so you get paid.
First, ask permission to your university for being paid to give lectures to an external association .
Second, since giving the talk to the Student Association is beyond your duties, you have all the rights to ask for a compensation (talking about ethics ...).
However, your interest in promoting Ethics seems to be very strong, being in itself a reasonable compensation, so I would proceed this way: you can state to the student association that you would charge 200 quids for this talk, but knowing the Students'Associations are on a tight budget, and that budget is better spent on books and beers, ask to convert the 200 quids in one beer or one book (relevant to Ethics of X).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The questions asks "Do academics charge for talks at student societies". The answer to this is generally no, I've rarely heard of academics charging student societies for talks, especially if they are local.
Note that this is not the same as saying *should* academics charge for their talks, that is a difficult and complex ethical question, but rather that, as a rule, they don't.
You can ask, but I suspect they answer will be that they have no money to pay you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: You don't say what discipline you are in; that may matter.
As a PhD student, especially in the first year, you should use this kind of invitation to practice giving academic talks of the kind you would give at a conference or as a job talk. In the first year you probably won't have much, but for students it can be an overview of a topic if you don't have research to present. I know what that would look like in my discipline but not yours.
Because giving academic papers is a part of the work you are training for and will be absolutely necessary in the long run, these are good opportunities as long as you don't let them be a distraction from getting your other work done.
I sometimes invite students on the job market to give practice talks to my undergraduates (if their topic is relevant to the class) and these are really helpful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: When I give *local* talks of any kind, I do not at all pretend to charge a fee, nor expect an honorarium, though a dinner (or free parking?) is nice.
When I give non-local *invited* talks, I would expect to have my *expenses* covered, more-or-less (I have to eat *anyway*), but not "make a profit" in money. In some cases there'll be benefits to me from giving the talk, or it promises to be a fun audience, so if my expenses are not completely covered, it's still desirable for me to do.
Yes, if one is in a financially delicate situation, these things loom larger... but I think the academic tradition (in more idealist milieus?) is to not expect to make a profit from telling about your own work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Unless you are a prominent figure in your field, you might ask whether there is a fee - or even expenses - or anything else but that's what you might ask about, not ask for…
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Given what you’ve told us about yourself, you don’t seem to have the rep to participate in the “cash-for-public-speaking” business.
So, if you asked me for payment, I’d say “no”, I’d think to myself “who does this guy think he is”, and I’d go find another speaker, and I’d never invite you again.
Your local student society might be more generous and forgiving than I am (lots of people are). Do you want to risk it?
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/16
| 1,642
| 6,314
|
<issue_start>username_0: In his book “Good work if you can get it: How to succeed in academia”, <NAME> advises aspiring academics against dating other PhD students while on graduate school.
Of course, I know that everyone is free to love anyone.
I’m not in a situation where I am deciding whether to date a particular PhD student or not. But there are things that I could do to increase the possibility of it happening (eg online dating, asking friends if they know someone who might be a good fit, etc).
Having read about the two-body problem that many academics face, I wonder what dating strategy (eg waiting until having a permanent position to date, dating someone with a job outside of academia, etc) I should have if I want to maximise my chances of landing a permanent academic job while having a SO (which I don’t currently have).
Note: I’m a first year PhD student at a top-3 university in the world for my field. My funding is the most prestigious scholarship available in my university for PhD students. So I have reasons to believe that my chances of landing an academic job are significantly higher than for an average PhD student. Might spousal-hires be a possibility longterm? Or dating another superstar PhD student to increase the odds of both getting a postdocs/jobs at the same universities.<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest to not ask a fee. It's a student society, and having served in the board of one, budget was always tight. Talks by PhDs and professors were always good since students could learn a lot and it was easy to organize and almost everybody was willing to talk about what they were doing, and always with a bottle of wine (or something non-alcoholic where appropriate) as 'payment'.
Regarding spending 24 hours on a talk - that seems like too much for a small gig at the student society. You know your field/research, and you probably have a feeling on the ethics around it, so it should be relatively easy to come up with what you want to say. I'd spend at most four hours on it, for a 30-45 minute talk. Two hours of structuring my contents, and two hours for creating the slides.
[Thanks avid](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/171168/do-academics-charge-for-talks-at-student-societies-as-a-phd-student-should-i-a/171173#comment461575_171173) - For a PhD student, you should take into account your funding and whether you can spend your working hours on this, or if you should do this in your free time.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I have been paid by the university when giving a sample lecture about
> my area of research to prospective students, and also when helping out
> at other outreach events.
>
>
>
If I read it correctly, it means those events were beyond your duty stated in the contract, so you get paid.
First, ask permission to your university for being paid to give lectures to an external association .
Second, since giving the talk to the Student Association is beyond your duties, you have all the rights to ask for a compensation (talking about ethics ...).
However, your interest in promoting Ethics seems to be very strong, being in itself a reasonable compensation, so I would proceed this way: you can state to the student association that you would charge 200 quids for this talk, but knowing the Students'Associations are on a tight budget, and that budget is better spent on books and beers, ask to convert the 200 quids in one beer or one book (relevant to Ethics of X).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The questions asks "Do academics charge for talks at student societies". The answer to this is generally no, I've rarely heard of academics charging student societies for talks, especially if they are local.
Note that this is not the same as saying *should* academics charge for their talks, that is a difficult and complex ethical question, but rather that, as a rule, they don't.
You can ask, but I suspect they answer will be that they have no money to pay you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: You don't say what discipline you are in; that may matter.
As a PhD student, especially in the first year, you should use this kind of invitation to practice giving academic talks of the kind you would give at a conference or as a job talk. In the first year you probably won't have much, but for students it can be an overview of a topic if you don't have research to present. I know what that would look like in my discipline but not yours.
Because giving academic papers is a part of the work you are training for and will be absolutely necessary in the long run, these are good opportunities as long as you don't let them be a distraction from getting your other work done.
I sometimes invite students on the job market to give practice talks to my undergraduates (if their topic is relevant to the class) and these are really helpful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: When I give *local* talks of any kind, I do not at all pretend to charge a fee, nor expect an honorarium, though a dinner (or free parking?) is nice.
When I give non-local *invited* talks, I would expect to have my *expenses* covered, more-or-less (I have to eat *anyway*), but not "make a profit" in money. In some cases there'll be benefits to me from giving the talk, or it promises to be a fun audience, so if my expenses are not completely covered, it's still desirable for me to do.
Yes, if one is in a financially delicate situation, these things loom larger... but I think the academic tradition (in more idealist milieus?) is to not expect to make a profit from telling about your own work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Unless you are a prominent figure in your field, you might ask whether there is a fee - or even expenses - or anything else but that's what you might ask about, not ask for…
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Given what you’ve told us about yourself, you don’t seem to have the rep to participate in the “cash-for-public-speaking” business.
So, if you asked me for payment, I’d say “no”, I’d think to myself “who does this guy think he is”, and I’d go find another speaker, and I’d never invite you again.
Your local student society might be more generous and forgiving than I am (lots of people are). Do you want to risk it?
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/16
| 397
| 1,645
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduating PhD student. I received a postdoc offer informally saying that I have been accepted. In reply I told them that I am looking forward to a formal offer letter. Will it be interpreted as my acceptance by the PI? I am still waiting for some results, however I can't provide a timeline to this PI as those offers may take unexpected time. Please guide me what should be my course of action. I am worried that if the PI gets upset it may harm my reputation in the long run.<issue_comment>username_1: It would be foolish of them to make that interpretation, but who can say. A formal letter, spelling out all terms is needed before you can make a formal acceptance.
Relax. It is done. It is (or should be) a small matter. I doubt that there is anything you can do at the moment until the offer is formalized. But you may have to make a real decision before all potential offers appear.
I don't see what "long term" consequences there could be if you reject, even if they've made poor assumptions.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you tell someone you want a formal job offer, they will think you are planning to accept it. But it will not hurt your reputation among reasonable people if you do not.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Asking for an offer is not acceptance. In contract law offer comes before acceptance, and a request for an offer is (at most) considered to be an ["invitation to treat"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat). Of course, if you ask for a formal offer and then do not accept it, they might be a bit annoyed (and confused).
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/16
| 1,349
| 5,947
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been doing my master thesis in Germany for the last six months and submitted my thesis this week. I kept in touch with the supervisor while I was writing the thesis and the result was satisfactory to him.
But as I was preparing the slides for my defense today, I suddenly received an email saying that my defense will be cancelled and that a meeting is needed next week. The professor and supervisor want to talk to me regarding the thesis. I asked the reason, but the supervisor did not give a clear reply, and just said that I don't need to prepare anything.
I am pretty sure that my thesis was written and completed independently by me. I am now very anxious about this unexpected situation. How can I approach this situation and prepare for the meeting?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't have a truly similar situation, but it seems that something has come up. Something that needs to be dealt with seriously. One case I know of was parallel work leading to two very similar doctoral theses, presented simultaneously, answering an important question. The plagiarism question naturally arises. In this case it was worked out satisfactorily to all parties including the wider community.
But it seems to be something that needs to be discussed before people are comfortable going forward. I suspect that the chances are good for a happy outcome, but can't say. That is the reason for the meeting.
I suggest taking a relaxed attitude until you know more.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The following is obviously an educated guess, so you have to be the judge whether it fits all the information you have:
* Your examiners found something of serious concern in your thesis. This could be potential plagiarism, data manipulation, etc. Otherwise they wouldn’t go through such extreme measures and wouldn’t have cancelled the defence already. The only reason I see for expecting a small issue is that your examiners may not know what they are doing at all (see my third point).
* Your examiners want to see whether you can defend yourself against an accusation properly without preparation. They are fixated on not telling you anything; otherwise your supervisor would not have reacted to your request like this. It is very unlikely that you will get any information out of them before the meeting. (Mind that I don’t condone this strategy here; see the next point.)
* Most importantly: Your examiners are way out of their depths and have no idea how to properly handle such a situation¹. They probably don’t know the default or official method to handle shortcomings or suspected academic misconduct in a thesis (which almost certainly exists) and fail to see things from your point of view, in particular the anxiety they are causing. Even if they want to take you by surprise, they could have just called for a meeting without cancelling the defence or did this at the defence itself – after all, that’s what it’s for. They probably cannot even cancel the defence unilaterally just like this.
Now, what can you do and keep in mind?
* Be able to defend everything you did in your thesis, in particular potential shortcomings. For example, if there are passages where one might want more citations, be able to explain why there are so few. This is not only a good preparation for the meeting per se, but also for the actual defence as well as your confidence.
* Get familiar with the pertaining examination rules. Know which ways **you** have to handle extreme situations and respond to accusations. In particular familiarise yourself with all the steps that need to happen to fail a master’s thesis (it’s usually a lot). You probably have a second professor to examine the thesis who should be able to intervene if things go awry; see whether you can get some general information on them. Finally, by knowing the rules you can also better react to inappropriate procedures being suggested during the meeting and instead insist on the proper procedure.
* As much as your professor’s behaviour sucks for you right now, it probably goes against written or unwritten rules and common sense. This in turn gives you some leverage if the situation escalates further, i.e., end up before a higher committee. In particular, in most fields a proper supervision includes pointing out issues with your thesis **before** you submit (save for misconduct, which may not be obvious).
* You have little to fear if you did not do anything wrong. While this saying sadly doesn’t apply in many areas and is often abused to downplay injustice, it applies to your scenario to a large extent. It is (unfortunately) already very difficult to stick academic misconduct to those who actually committed it – the cases that you get to hear are the extreme ones. If they think you committed misconduct, they have the burden of proof.
---
¹ This is unfortunately very common. Keep in mind that professors are mostly selected for being researcher-group leaders and not for being bureaucrats. I have seen several professors display astounding ignorance about the procedures and rules of their institutions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: There is no reason to pre-empt these types of situations by *guessing* what people might want; just wait until the meeting and you will find out what is at issue. In the event that any serious concern is raised, stay calm and do not feel the need to respond contemporaneously; just ask for time to think over any matter raised.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: You are worried about why they did not explain the matter in the email. Actually, this is for your advantage. If there is a problem and if they explain it in the email, that makes the problem official. If they haven't explained in the email, that means they haven't made up their mind about how to deal with the problem yet. I sense compassion, and opportunity for you to explain your side about the problem.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/16
| 414
| 1,765
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know there are a lot of high-quality journals where I may submit my **serious** research articles. But suppose I have a finding, an observation, a conjecture, a pattern, a poem, an anecdote related to mathematics. Is there a journal that would publish a thing like that?<issue_comment>username_1: Many journals have a section devoted to "letters" rather than the normal research papers.
Not the same thing, but scholars often get together at conferences (real and virtual) to bring up such things. If you have the status of Riemann, of course, you can propose questions for which answers are needed.
IIRC the journal of the Mathematical Association of America once had a section for informal things, though I don't know if poems would qualify.
See if [The American Mathematical Monthly](https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/american-mathematical-monthly) would qualify.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The [Journal of Humanistic Mathematics](https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/) seems to be what you are looking for.
>
> We publish articles that focus mainly on the doing of mathematics, the teaching of mathematics, and the living of mathematics. We also welcome contributions about the state of the mathematical profession (both in research and in education), underrepresentation issues within the world of mathematics, mathematics across national and cultural boundaries, mathematical fiction and poetry, personal reflections that provide insight to the inner workings of the mathematical mind, and other types of writing which may stimulate discussion among our readers. Overall we are a free platform where many different conversations about mathematics are welcome and encouraged.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/16
| 844
| 3,650
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying to pure math phd programs, and looking to study algebraic geometry. I have one very strong letter from a professor who supervised some algebraic geometry research I did. I am not sure about the other two letters. I think I may be able to get a decent letter from a math professor who taught two courses I did well in. I was not on campus very much during the past year so I do not think there is a third math professor who even knows me well enough to write a good letter.
I worked in a physics lab as an underclassman for several semesters. The PI thought very highly of my work (and said so) and we had a good relationship. (Unfortunately COVID prevented me from doing any further work in his lab.) **Would it be wiser to get a third LOR from this person or from a math professor who barely knows me?**
I think such a letter would showcase my capability to do research in general, and my willingness to solve problems outside of "my own" field. However, the PI wouldn't be able to comment on my potential in pure math, so I'm concerned his letter might simply be out of place. Also, although I had a good experience working in his lab, I haven't spoken to the PI for a year now, and while I'm sure he would write me a letter, he wouldn't be able to talk about anything I've done recently. Hence the letter may come off as "out-dated". Finally, I don't actually want to pursue research in physics in the future, and I don't want math phd programs to get the wrong idea that I am unsure of my career path.
The other option for my third letter writer is some professor in the math department (I'd basically be picking at random at this point) who doesn't know me personally but taught me one course. I understand neither option is ideal, but **is it better to get a letter from a professor who knows me personally but which is out-dated and off-topic, or from a professor who doesn't know me personally but which is current and on-topic?**<issue_comment>username_1: I'll assume this is for the US. It might possibly be different in other places with a lesser importance given to such letters.
A person who doesn't really know you won't do your application any good. What can they say that is truthful and predicts your future success and knows whether you work hard or coast along.
Even a letter from someone who can only say "this person did well in my course" isn't of much help.
Since the undergraduate program in the US is very general, it isn't uncommon for people outside your major to know things of value, especially if you have worked closely with them.
The letter from a physicist that you have worked with is almost certainly better then from a mathematician who doesn't know you - assuming of course that they praise you honestly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: To add on to username_1's answer, it's not uncommon for someone to do research on a different area in undergrad than they do in their graduate studies. Any research experience will be of benefit for a PhD program, even if it is not directly related to what you want to focus on for your PhD.
Physics and pure mathematics, at least from my undergraduate experience, are very closely related. I'd get the physics prof's recommendation, especially if they could speak more highly of you than a math prof who doesn't really know you. You say you haven't spoken to that physics professor in over a year, and that you are concerned about his ability to speak of you as a math researcher. Before or when you ask them for their recommendation, this is something that I would discuss with the professor.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/16
| 1,264
| 5,601
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am conducting research with a Ph.D. scholar under a supervisor, who is, in some sense, heading this group. The Ph.D. scholar and the supervisor have two articles undergoing a second round of review. The comments received in the first round of review were fairly straightforward to address, according to the Ph.D. scholar. For this reason, it is believed that the papers will be accepted soon.
The research I am conducting can be seen as an extension of the work done by the Ph.D. scholar and the supervisor. For this, it would be useful for me to have access to the articles they have under review. However, the Ph.D. scholar is reluctant to share these articles, and would prefer to wait until they are accepted before sharing them with me. Note that the papers are not available anywhere online, not on a website and not even on a preprint server.
The question is not about what I can do: I am okay with the situation, and have no real problem waiting till the articles are accepted. I am however interested in the more general case.
I assumed that since I was, in a way, a part of this group, any research that they may have under preparation or review would be accessible to me, in some manner, and I wouldn't have to wait until the published versions came out to access the research. Is my assumption correct, and is my experience less common than the alternative?
Simply put, is it common for members of a research group, including graduate students, to be able to access articles that are under review, so that they can obtain insights to further their understanding of a topic, and hence increase the pace at which they conduct research? Or is the alternative more common? For obvious reasons, I am particularly interested in fields/topics in which preprints are not widespread, and the usual publication process holds.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I assumed that since I was, in a way, a part of this group, any research that they may have under preparation or review would be accessible to me, in some manner, and I wouldn't have to wait until the published versions came out to access the research. Is my assumption correct, and is my experience less common than the alternative?
>
>
>
It would be typical in any research group I've been part of that everyone in the group have access to collaborative work within the group. Our in-progress papers are all readily accessible by anyone in the lab. It's common to pass things around among people not immediately involved in a specific project to get their "outsider" perspective on it, as well.
The only time I see people being secretive is usually students who are a bit nervous about their early-stage work and like to hide it a little bit until it's "ready for consumption". That's fine, too, but it's limited to things that are still far from ready to submit.
The secrecy you describe seems very weird to me, but maybe just a personality quirk of this one individual. When patents are concerned, rather than publications, things might be a little different because of the complex legal circumstances around patents.
It seems like a serious impediment to your work to not have an up-to-date history of what else is going on in the research group. Although you are *okay* with waiting, I don't think it's in your best interest. I would ask this PhD scholar to have a conversation with you and the supervisor to resolve this. Perhaps they are nervous about something they shouldn't be, perhaps they fear the supervisor wouldn't want the work shared when in reality they have no issue with it. I would not recommend simply waiting for it to be published. Science is a constant incremental project, and being in a lab where related work is being done you should be ahead of the broader community on the next steps.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Contrary to username_1's experience, none of the research groups I've ever belonged to had any kind of structured shared access to work-in-progress. I also had not heard of other groups with such arrangements before. If any of my colleagues would express *entitlement* to see my work-in-progress, I would be rather peeved. But polite requests by people I know (whether at the same institution or not) typically lead to access to even extremely stage drafts.
That said, an article that has already been submitted for publication is supposed to be something ready for others to read. I personally would make such articles publically avaiable via the arXiv anyway. But even if there are reasons to keep the work confidently, not sharing it with a close colleague who has a good reason for needing to read it seems very weird to me.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Okay in the west it’s fairly common to have access to the group’s research as you go along, build up partnerships and write papers together. However, based on some of the horror stories I’ve heard about in Indian universities, that might not be the norm because of part experience of stealing research and whatnot (this also happens in the west, but only with a confluence of a lot of major wrongs).
But if this paper is already in the review process I don’t see why your colleague would be so scared to share the research. You should talk to your advisor and find out what the norm is within your research groups so that you know how to operate going forward. If scooping each other’s research is a concern you all might try and putting out preprints at arxiv in the future to ensure that a public DOI is generated and is couple to active manuscripts.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/16
| 1,677
| 6,786
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the recent years I have observed more often some existing limits on the age of a person pursuing an academic career and in the postdoc years spent after the PhD. For example, it is very common to read an academic job opening where the applicant must be under the age of 35 and at maximum must have spent 5 to 7 years of postdoc. It is well known for example that in China (maybe in all country or some part of it) that if you want to apply for an assistant professor position you must be under the age of 35 and not older.
What surprises and annoys me about these age limitations is that they seem to not take into account the academic structure of the country where the applicant got the PhD. For example, I got my PhD in Europe where in my country is valid the Bologna academic system (3+2+3) and I got my PhD regularly in time at the age of 27-28. Even if I wanted to finish my studies earlier, it was not possible to defend my PhD before the age 27-28 because the academic system in my country is structured in such a way that forbids you to end the studies before.
On the other hand, there are some countries like the UK, Russia, USA, France etc., where in general the age when you finish your PhD is between 22-25. In these countries, as I was told by some colleagues, the academic system allows the students to finish their PhD regularly in time between the ages of 22-25.
The problem with the situations that I described above is that they tend to create discrimination based on age for someone pursuing an academic career because in some countries you can finish your PhD much earlier than in some others. Supposing for example that someone finishes the PhD at 23 in UK while some other person finishes the PhD at 27 in Italy or Germany, this age gap of 4 years would give an advantage to someone getting the PhD earlier in those cases where exists starting tenure track age limitations. Also the person who finishes the PhD earlier might have an advantage because has more time available to produce scientific output. In addition, it is very common to hear people in academia saying something like: " this person finished the PhD at 23 so he/she must be a genius" without taking into account the academic structure of the country that awarded the PhD.
My questions are:
1. Have you already noticed in your academic career the situations that I described above?
2. Does the university/institute where you work takes into account the PhD completion age of the tenure track candidate and the academic structure of the PhD awarding country?
UPDATE NR1:
This is an update to my question based on some comments that people have written so far. In my question I considered China as a matter of example where official age limitations exist. I also know some universities in EU that have introduced some age limitations as well for an assistant professor entry. The point of my question is to make people aware that if these age limitations become officially in many countries, then it is obvious that those people who get the PhD earlier have more advantages. The ugly truth is that theses age discriminations happen unofficially during candidate selection by a tenure track committee, where the person who got the PhD earlier is more favoured. I know this information from people that took part in a tenure track selection committee.<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, you are making a logical error. It isn't that some people have an advantage, it is just that you compete with a different cohort. But the number of people in the pool is about the same as it would be otherwise.
And, getting a doctorate at 22 in the US, at least, is very rare. It would require some special set of circumstances, which are possible, but not common. I think that 27 is much more common than 22, for example. And many are older still since there isn't a maximum time for doctoral studies. (I was a few months short of 29).
Moreover, I don't know what your remedy would be. Not permit a person who earned a degree at 22 to get an academic job for five years because your educational system is different?
Generally, with a few exceptions, people get hired for the work that they have done and how people (letter writers, say) project their future accomplishments. Not their age.
If there is age discrimination it is more likely at the other end; those who earn a degree at 45 or so.
---
If you want to work in a system like that of China, that is your choice, not their discrimination. It certainly isn't a conspiracy against you managed by the evil academics in China and Europe. You need to follow their rules, as does everyone else.
Much of what is disadvantaging you now is the pandemic combined with a terrible marketplace for academics generally. But that isn't discrimination. No one planned it. If you want to thrive in hard times, you need to work harder and smarter than your peers.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: As @username_1 says, in the U.S. (in math, my field), finishing a PhD is rarely achieved by age 22-25, but at a minimum something more like 27-28.
And, especially given the job market, there's no advantage to finish in 4 rather than 5, or rather than 6. For example, using a couple extra years of funding to get a couple papers out is far better than finishing as early as possible.
In principle, the only version of "age" that can be legally considered is "PhD age", meaning age since PhD. The idea is that senior people should not compete with new PhD's for postdocs. Yes, this does tend to create a situation in which there is a window in which to get/do a postdoc or two, after which it's tenure-track or nothing... more-or-less.
The U.S. system used to be less rigid, but that also did lend itself to various forms of abuse of junior people, stringing them along with some vague promise of maybe-tenure-someday... The rules that prohibit this do also accidentally create some other complications.
EDIT/ADDITION: In the U.S., there is no mandate to put one's birthdate on a CV, so one's chronological age is not immediately obvious. Probably, though, yes, date of B.S. gives a strong clue to chronological age (more, perhaps, than PhD date). Work-and-experience history would, too. And if people want to under-the-table determine chrono age, marital status, and all kinds of stuff, it is not possible to prevent it. ("Blind" applications would not succeed at this... though it's something to imagine, perhaps.)
For grad admissions, in fact, I am very interested in people who give evidence of being not-so-naive, a little more grown up. Sometimes this is correlated with other incidental experiences, etc., but not necessarily. (The joke is that "Sometimes age brings wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone".)
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/17
| 669
| 2,932
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduate student who started to collaborate with a postdoc last year on a research project which we both came up with. During the past year we had several discussions about this project. I mostly did the calculations and proofs and he focused more on giving general advice and comments on the big picture of this project. The collaboration seemed to go well.
Early this year we decided that the results are strong enough and we should write a paper soon. I finished a paper draft containing all results about three months ago. There are still several sections (e.g. introduction) left blank because he insisted on writing that himself.
After I sent him the draft, he didn't start to write his part but asked me to change the structure of the paper and I also finished that pretty soon. Then he had a vacation for two weeks and I didn't bother him during that time. Every time I asked him about the progress, he was either busy finding a job or having a family emergency and he didn't start to write his part until now. He said once at a time that he could finish the paper in two weeks but then two weeks later nothing was written down.
I didn't want to rush him because job/family seem to be more important things than writing a paper, but I couldn't help but worry if he was just making excuses to procrastinate. And since he seldom wrote anything down from the beginning of this project, I have no idea how long it will take him to finish the paper.
How do I deal with the current situation? I don't have a high expectation that the paper can be finished soon, but I also cannot stand waiting forever.<issue_comment>username_1: So, just do it. Write the missing parts as best you can. Keep the other as co-author and ask permission to publish. You have an issue that may not be resolvable otherwise. The co-author may not have any options about this.
Keep them informed, but push forward. If they come back in, then do what you need to do to merge the work. Preferably ask advice (say, in editing).
This isn't an especially unusual situation, actually. Things happen. Life goes on. Some obligations are absolute, but working on a paper seldom is.
And, if you *can't* do it on your own, then your only other option seems to be patience, unless you can expand the collaboration.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a variation on @username_1's answer. I would ask the collaborator if it would be helpful for you to provide a draft of the missing sections that they could then edit as much as they want. You could also list out the bullet points that you think should be in the missing sections so that they can respond before you write that draft.
This is what I almost always had to do when I was a doctoral student writing with faculty. Frankly, most of the time they didn't change much but it was still the respectful way to make it clear that they own that section.
Upvotes: 4
|
2021/07/17
| 515
| 2,175
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduate student and am updating my CV for my upcoming postdoc search. While doing so, I found that it looks nicer (format-wise) with just the names of the projects, service activities, awards, etc., than it did with a 1-2 sentence description over 2-3 lines.
I could remove the descriptions entirely, or I could shorten them to a single line. In either case it would be more consistent and more nicely presented. As far as I have seen, there is no convention on what should have a description and what shouldn't.
What rules of thumb do you have for whether or not to describe things on your CV? If you do add descriptions, how do you do so without it turning into padding?<issue_comment>username_1: I would do both, meaning I would create **a long version** with 2-3 lines of description **and a short version** without (or describing only 1-2 projects). The trick is to **submit the right version for each application** (based on what the postdoc ad is asking for).
(In case this helps: for me the "winner" was the short, 1-page version with 3 lines of description for two projects and an awful lot of links to Google Scholar, ResearchGate, degree certificate from my uni, etc.)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Generally, in both industry and academia, it is my impression that people tend to quickly gloss over resumes and CV's, as time is a valuable commodity and such people are already busy with reading so many resumes/CV's amongst other things they have to do. Your best bet is to keep it short and concise on paper (i.e., short bullet points with relatively short sentences) as opposed to long, potentially run-on sentences. As has been mentioned, it's a good thing to tailor your resume/CV to the job/postdoc position that you are applying to, but in general, especially if you have more things to put on your CV, you'll want shorter and more concise descriptions. If you want to describe more in detail, you can always do this on a website or LinkedIn page. You'll also have an opportunity to go more into detail about your past experience pertinent to the job at hand in the interview process.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/17
| 643
| 2,723
|
<issue_start>username_0: Three years ago, I submited my paper to a journal. On their website there was an impact factor. After submitting my work, I discovered that the stated impact factor is not official and the journal does not exist on the PubMed database. So, I decided to withdraw my article from the journal. The journal refused to release my work. Even though I have not signed on author rights and not payed the manuscript publication fees, the journal published the manuscript by force. As I could not change the situation and there were no corrections and I knew that we might fall to learn more I left the matter be.
After about three years of forced publication of my work illegally in that journal, the journal send me a request to pay their money after the forced publication.
Is that logical? Please, inform me of the solution for this trouble? Does the journal that stole my work have rights?<issue_comment>username_1: It is just their "business model". I suggest that you ignore them. If they insist, then ask that the paper be retracted. Apparently you still hold copyright.
However, IANAL, and don't know what legal remedy they might have. If you can reconstruct the complete history of correspondence with them it would be useful.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You're dealing with a [predatory journal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing). Rights and logic don't apply to predatory journals.
You refuse to pay and tell them to retract the article if they wish.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I had a similar situation. I did not know it was a predatory journal.
As [username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834/allure) wrote, refuse to pay even a penny and ask for a retraction.
Your only fault seems to be that you have submitted, as I did, without a thorough investigation of the journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Just what rights the journal has depends on the wording of the website and whatever terms you submitted your work under. A valid contract, at least in US law, requires meeting of the minds and exchange of consideration. If you agreed to terms as a result of a false belief (e.g. you believed that the journal has an impact factor that it does not in fact have, and/or you believed that the journal was in the PubMed database), that can be grounds for invalidating any contract between you, depending on how reasonable it was for you to have and rely on that belief. If that false belief was deliberately induced by the journal, that likely constitutes fraud. If the publication of your paper does not benefit you, that is another grounds for invalidating the contract, as that would mean lack of consideration.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/18
| 709
| 3,025
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a student, you would like to stay in touch with and participate in conferences, present papers and get the proceedings published. However, as I have come to notice, such conferences ask for hefty sums as fees for this.
How to deal with this?
And what about the online conferences?<issue_comment>username_1: If you worked on a grant, it will typically have a budget for traveling to present your work. You should charge those grants. This would have to be a conversation with whoever's in charge of that grant (the principal investigator). Make sure you talk to them first and not just assume you can charge the grant.
If you were not working on a grant, your department (or whatever organizational unit) may have funds for you to apply for to present "nonsponsored" research.
Occasionally, the conference itself may have funds or waivers you can apply to, often available to researchers in developing countries. Usually though, this would only cover conference fees, not travel and hotels, which can cost much more.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Check if your university has travel grants for students. Large conferences also often have student travel awards you can apply for when you submit your abstract.
Alternatively, in some countries there are government agencies where you can apply for short term visits and conference grants. Downside is that you have to apply far in advance and they tend to be very competitive.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you need to learn about how conference work in your field. The best option is to talk to someone more senior that you in your field.
In math and physics, often the most interesting conferences have no registration fee, but sometimes the trick is getting invited. There may be conferences in some regions with lower fees. I know lots of conferences that charge no fee to graduate students and have high fees for professors.
I have never been to a conference where the registration fee is more that 25% of my expense budget for that conference, expect for ones in my city where my only other cost was parking.
You may say this is all irrelevant to your area of research. Since you did not mention your area of research, we are all just guessing.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Some (large) conferences have a need for a large number of "helpers", called "student volunteers". In exchange for some number of hours of work (registration table, making sure speakers have water, lots of things) they get full attendance for free. I don't know (but doubt) if there is an additional stipend.
Many, perhaps most, of the student volunteers may come from one or more local universities, but I don't think that is required.
Such conferences may have a "call" for student volunteers on their web page.
Travel and accommodation may still be the biggest expense, but it may be that some conferences can help, especially with the latter if you are willing to share a room with a stranger.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/18
| 422
| 1,808
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it required to cite the source(s) in the cited works list if you mention a known theory like for example Maslow pyramide of needs?<issue_comment>username_1: You don't need to cite things that are "common knowledge". But this depends to a pretty big extent on the audience. If you were writing for me, you would need to cite it since this is the first time I'd be likely to see the term. If you were writing for a psychology audience it might be different (I can't judge, obviously).
However, while it may not be *required* to cite, it might (in many circumstances) be polite. If you err, then I suggest doing so on the side of over, not under, citation.
On the other hand, you are unlikely to be accused of plagiarism, specifically, if you use an unfamiliar term.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Unless you are doing a historical examination of a theory, you don't always have to cite the original source of an idea. Some ideas have entered the literature to such an extent that authors may just give some key citations to major works, which may not have been the original works on the topic. Academic papers will sometimes briefly discuss the genesis of a theory, but often they just cite some major works confirming the existence of the theory and then they get down to business.
When you have a theory that is named after a person (e.g., Maslow's hierarchy of needs) you will sometimes cite the original paper just so that your reader knows where the name comes from, but this tends to be the case only if the theory is not well known. Many named theories are so widely known in the literature that they are commonly cited without going back to the original source; e.g., when statisticians use applied Bayesian methods we do not usually cite Thomas Bayes.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/18
| 654
| 2,756
|
<issue_start>username_0: My PhD letter includes the follow line:
>
> Note that your offer of admission is contingent upon your satisfaction of all local, state and federal laws.
>
>
>
My question is: I don't have an issue with this contingency per se, but is that standard language to include, or am I being singled out with this line? How can I check whether I was the only one to receive this type of letter.
My concern is that I am being discriminated against. For example, why am I being held in suspicion of possibly breaking any laws, and then my admission should be contingent upon those laws not being broken.<issue_comment>username_1: You aren't being discriminated against. It is [boilerplate](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/boilerplate.asp) given to all potential students at this university. There is no suspicion involved, and no singling out.
But the implication is that you agree that if you have lied or misrepresented things in application materials or if, in future, you break some law, then you can be dismissed. It is a kind of "safety clause" that lets the institution easily disassociate itself from any illegal acts.
I don't know how common this is, but it may be increasingly common, perhaps driven by such things as the admissions scandal 2019. If this is the US, there may even be some state law that requires the formulation.
---
When I was a grad student (long ago) we were required to sign "loyalty oaths".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are a foreign student, your ability to come study in the US depends on your ability to get a visa. If the university makes an admission offer and you later end up being unable to come because of visa (or other immigration-related) issues, you could claim that you were misled by being given an unconditional offer that in the end had to be rescinded because you were unable to physically attend the program. You could even sue the university and ask for damages (people in the US are somewhat fond of suing each other, compared to people in most other countries).
To avoid this situation, universities add language to their offer letters to indicate that the offer is conditioned on applicable laws being satisfied. Immigration issues are the most common type of legal problem that could come up, but the language is a bit more general to make allowance for other sorts of legal obstacles the university has no control over and which could prevent an accepted student from attending.
Bottom line: you are not being discriminated against. This line in admission letters is standard and does not indicate that you (or anyone else whose letter says the same thing) are suspected of having done anything wrong or being in any sort of legal trouble.
Upvotes: 5
|
2021/07/18
| 2,397
| 9,787
|
<issue_start>username_0: Over the last year, I conducted research under two professors A and B on two topics A and B. In the last few months, I have come up with an idea that uses concepts from topic A to present a solution to a problem in B, i.e. the idea could be called **"Solution to B using A".** As far as I can tell, the idea is new, and (if I may say so myself) quite elegant. I intend to write this up and submit to a *decent*, normal-ish conference. Note that neither of my advisors are aware that I have been working on this, and hence I intend to put my name as the sole author. I have, however, drawn from research I conducted under them.
**Question:** Am I under any **obligation** to show the two advisors my work, and inform them that I plan to submit to a certain conference?
I am a little afraid of negative feedback if I show my work, feedback I would rather get anonymously from reviewers rather than from advisors under whom I continue to conduct research. (This is possibly irrational, and I need to deal with it, but for the moment, it is what it is.)
Neither advisor is familiar with the *other* topic, and hence neither will be able to judge the paper as a whole. I am also a little worried that by the time I obtain feedback from either (or both) of them, the deadline for my preferred conference would've passed. While I do realize that consulting with them will likely improve the quality of the paper, I will mention that:
* I am confident that the mathematical details are correct.
* Both advisors have been very complimentary of my writing style in previous paper(s) I have published with them. The final, published manuscripts do not differ from the drafts I wrote by more than 5%.
* I don't believe that asking both of them to work together on looking over my paper is a viable option, as it's unlikely they could spare the time. Also, *they don't really get along with each other.*
If I don't consult with them, I am worried that either (or both) of them would be a little offended, since I have drawn from work I conducted under them. I don't wish for them to think that I have an over-confident or arrogant streak in me, and hence did not consult them. Is that logical?
**EDIT:** I am not a Ph.D. student. I have just completed my undergraduate degree, and will be joining a master's degree in Fall-2021. The research I conducted under both advisors was not to obtain a degree, it was *voluntary*. Advisor A is at my undergraduate institution, advisor B was at that institution until last year. There were no institutional rules I was bound by while conducting research.<issue_comment>username_1: There is a delicate balance here that only you can resolve. It is good to keep advisors advised, so to speak, about your activities. Most will support you provided that the tangential stuff doesn't detract from your main work.
OTOH, you need to consider personalities. There are certainly those who would object, but you can probably judge that from past interactions.
Ultimately the purpose of doctoral education is to have the student eventually surpass their advisors. Only then does science make breakthroughs. But not everyone can deal with that idea.
It might be that one or the other would react badly to any action you take. It shouldn't happen that way, but think about your relationship to these people.
One thing you might consider, but need to judge for yourself, is to tell them that you've been working on a side project that has come to fruition, but is different from your main-line studies. You'd be happy to share it if asked, though it is outside their main interest.
---
Edited to add in response to the edited question. I think that the balance shifts strongly toward informing them. I'd guess my suggested format is even more appropriate in your case. And you are lucky to have people supporting you at an early stage of your career.
I'll leave the answer in place as a general one that applies to the more common situation where advisors are also "supervisors" in some sense.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A few things to consider:
1. Consult the rules for PhD students at your university (I assume you are one). The university where I did my PhD had rules stating that a student needed permission by their supervisor to submit stuff for publication. My understanding is that such rules are rare however.
2. If I put myself into the shoes of your supervisor, I would consider it rude if I only learn about this paper in hindsight. I would not necessarily expect to be ask for permission, but I would like to be informed (and the chance to provide feedback). It's perfectly fine to say "I will submit this paper to conference X on the YYth. I know you're busy, but if you have any feedback for me please let me know".
3. It is also rude to the referees. Since referees perform a voluntary and mostly thankless duty, there is a responsibility on authors to submit stuff which is as good as possible. Its your supervisors job to read potentially horrible drafts and tell you how to fix them, not necessarily the referees.
Neither my point 2 nor my point 3 have the conclusion that you absolutely must not go ahead with your plan, but that it would be better to overcome your reservations.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I've been in a very similar situation about two years ago. Now I'm a PhD student.
While you are not under any **obligation** to tell them, I would strongly advise that you do. There are multiple reasons why:
1. *It will most likely improve your paper.*
Talking to people about your research tends to improve your research. Especially if the people are more experienced than you. For example, maybe *B* can tell you that your result has other cool consequences in their reseach area, or *A* sees a way to generalize some part of your proof, or....
In my case, input from one of my advisors helped generalize my theorem, greatly improving the quality of my paper, and I got my paper into a much better journal than my original version would have been accepted in.
2. *It can help improve your chances of a career in academia.*
Math that connects two areas of research is *very interesting.* You finding these connections yourself is impressive and will make you a very good candidate to offer a PhD position to when the time comes. At the very least, the more promising you show to be, the more likely they are to show attention to you, involve you in future projects, give extensive feedback on other projects, etc. So, showing them your research is good.
In my case, I got two very good PhD offers out of it, and I could choose my advisor.
3. *It will show that you are a good person to work with.*
A couple of comments on quotes from your question:
>
> As far as I can tell, the idea is new, and (if I may say so myself) quite elegant.
>
>
>
As an undergrad (and even as a grad student), you are probably not a good judge on this. This is why we have advisors, because they have a much better overview of the field, and can tell whether something has been done before.
>
> I intend to write this up and submit to a decent, normal-ish conference.
>
>
>
Again, you probably can't judge whether that's the appropriate format. Maybe the result is so cool that it should be submitted to somewhere better. Maybe it doesn't stand a chance for acceptance at even a decent conference because the result is so niche. Another reason why talking to someone more experienced could be helpful.
>
> I intend to put my name as the sole author.
>
>
>
You can do that even if they read through it and provide feedback.
>
> I am a little afraid of negative feedback if I show my work, feedback I would rather get anonymously from reviewers rather than from advisors under whom I continue to conduct research. (This is possibly irrational, and I need to deal with it, but for the moment, it is what it is.)
>
>
>
Me too. But I can tell you that your mentors will most likely not judge you, even if you give them complete nonsense, or a very niche result. I can't tell you how many times I showed mine math that was just plain wrong, or that they found uninteresting. I can assure you, the fact that you are an undergrad trying to produce (from what it sounds like) sensible independent research will be far more important than any mistake they could find in your draft. (And most mistakes are fixable.)
>
> Neither advisor is familiar with the other topic, and hence neither will be able to judge the paper as a whole.
>
>
>
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Most professors know a huge amount of math, and even if they might not be *experts* on that topic, they could very well be *fluent enough* to provide meaningful opinions.
>
> I am also a little worried that by the time I obtain feedback from either (or both) of them, the deadline for my preferred conference would've passed.
>
>
>
Why are you rushing to get it submitted? Why do you want it submitted at that exact conference? I can't answer that for you, you might very well have good reasons. But you should probably ask yourself whether an increase in quality would remedy a later submission.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Since you're an undergrad, I suggest that you're not the most experienced with the dynamics of presenting at a conference, the subtleties about which conference is the best for your type of work, and a whole bunch of other things.
Also, since you're an undergrad, you don't have any real allegiance to any PI. Your time is largely your own (assuming you haven't used any resources you're not really entitled to use).
If somebody experience is willing to review your work before submission, this would be a favor, and worth pursuing.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/18
| 1,026
| 4,403
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let's consider the following situation:
Author A submits a paper to a journal. Referee B writes a critical referee report and recommends rejection. Author A then resubmits the same paper to another journal managed by Editor C with no edits made. As luck has it, Editor C asks Referee B to referee the paper again.
Let's assume here that Referee B's criticisms are valid. My questions are:
1. At what point do Author A's actions become unethical? Can they count as research misconduct?
2. Assuming Author A's actions are misconduct, what actions should be taken by Referee B? By Editor C once the issue is exposed?
My understanding is that it would be unfortunate to attempt to republish someone else’s work without being aware of it, but would be considered misconduct to do so intentionally. So I guess Questiin 1 is partially asking if Referee B’s report should be construed as prior knowledge.
I'm also aware that the critiques Referee B give influence the outcome of Question 1. Some, like omitting critical details of a proof in a math paper, are field specific. Others are more universal, like refusing to cite prior work that contains some of the claimed results.
Edit: question 1 has been edited to use less strong language.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no misconduct. There may be disagreement, but not misconduct. Journals accept or reject for a variety of reasons, some of which are fairly philosophical.
It may even be that Referee B will recommend acceptance at a second journal if there is a better fit with the paper there.
Whether the author is *wise* to ignore referee suggestions is another matter. In most cases the suggestions lead to improvements and increase the likelihood of acceptance *somewhere*, but not always.
But if the referee targets misconduct (say, failure to cite) in a paper, others will likely catch it also and recommend (require) changes.
A fair number of papers actually are in the scenario you mention, though fewer with the same referee at a different journal. But in some sub-fields, the number of appropriate reviewers is limited.
---
At worst, the "misconduct" would be the discourteous wasting of people's time. But the referee would surely minimize that waste in any case in which that is the issue.
---
Note that many people first submit to a journal that they know is not likely to accept the paper. Then, after rejection, submit to one that is a better fit. That, too, can waste people's time, though, in this case, the editor may do a quick reject, saving everyone else's effort.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In my view, there is no *scientific* ethical question in play: once your paper has been rejected, it is up to you what you want to do with it, and that can include sending it somewhere else as is. Indeed, some rejections will come with an explicit offer to transfer your paper to another (usually lower ranked) venue that is expected to want to publish it!
There is still, however, a question of professionalism and reputation. If your paper has significant errors in it and you decline to correct them, then those errors will still be there, and that's going to look sloppy and unprofessional to anybody who becomes aware of it. I have been referee B for such a situation, and I recommended rejection because the problems hadn't changed. And then people will think you're disrespectful for wasting people's time, and that will definitely not help your career.
Here is how I'd think of dividing the general cases of when to revise or not with a rejection:
* **Rejected due to scientific errors or lack of clarity:** these issues absolutely must be fixed before submitting anywhere else.
* **Rejected due to scope mismatch or "not significant enough":** you can submit elsewhere without revision, but it's always good to use critical feedback to strengthen your work.
* **Rejected because the reviewers wanted more material:** depends on the circumstance. Sometimes, reviewers identify a significant gap, and you need to correct it; other times it's more "I wish this research were further along already" and it's reasonable to go without revision to a venue that welcomes early results or preliminary work.
* **Rejected with offer for transfer:** pretty much always take the offer (assuming it's reasonable), and no need to revise unless requested to as part of the process.
Upvotes: 4
|
2021/07/19
| 1,192
| 5,159
|
<issue_start>username_0: I did an undergraduate degree in one engineering discipline (electrical), and a course based masters in the same discipline of engineering (electrical) and another course based masters in another discipline of engineering (civil).
The undergraduate GPA is very poor, but the masters GPAs were better: 3.7 in the one in a different field than the undergrad (civil) and 3.3 in the same field as undergrad (electrical). I have done more than 20 graduate courses as a non degree student with a GPA of 3.8 in civil and electrical engineering.
I want to apply for PhD as opposed to Masters with thesis in the same discipline as my undergraduate degree and one of my masters degrees (both electrical). I do not have particularly strong recommendations apart from doing well in course work, and no research papers or research experience. I would like to do research in academia or an industrial research lab.
Can I get into a PhD with a very poor undergraduate record and no thesis based masters degree - or should I do a thesis masters degree first ? How can I show potential for research ?<issue_comment>username_1: Your best bet would be to try and talk to professors (either from your undergraduate or MS programs) regarding how you can get involved in research and gain the experience necessary to join a PhD program.
Ideally, a thesis-based masters would be the best type of MS to pursue if you are interested in pursuing a PhD. Since you already have two MS degrees, this may make things harder and more complicated for you to pursue a formal MS with thesis. In addition to contacting professors from your previous institutions, to start, you should begin reading papers in your field(s) of interest and also try to contact any prospective advisors at any institutions you may want to attend for future degrees.
I also wouldn't rule out trying to start as an independent researcher, although the way to do this can be very ambiguous. Although I graduated undergrad with some research experience (due to starting research late), the experience I have isn't exactly impressive, and I didn't have too much direction or understanding of ML-related fields of interest such as Natural Language Processing. I happened to look up a lab's posting for post-bacs, and although it's just a side project (unpaid volunteer) in addition to my full-time consulting job at the moment, it's very good experience that has opened up my eyes in my potential field of interest.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: PhD programs in the US don't typically expect a previous masters degree of any sort (it might be a lot more common in some fields than others, though; engineering would be one of them where it seems more common, though I am basing that mostly on seeing engineering CVs rather than having much familiarity with grad school in engineering). Having done a master's program could shore up a poor undergraduate record, of course, and give you a second crack at doing research in an academic setting. However, it seems you've gotten a couple masters degrees without taking advantage of that part: having a second crack at research.
Therefore, if I were looking at your application, the first thing I'd notice is that you basically haven't shown **any past interest** in academic research. I'd be wondering: why does this person now want to apply for a PhD program to become trained in doing research, given that they have not yet done anything that shows they are *interested* in doing research, or whether they have aptitude towards research or even *like* doing research?
I think all of that makes you a weaker candidate than even someone with poorer grades that does have some research experience.
I think it's very difficult to answer the question "how can I show potential for research?" when so far your career says on paper "I am not interested in research". Certainly getting some sort of paid junior academic research position would be a good step, but I'm not sure whether those positions are common in your field or whether your resume will be suited to getting you that spot. There may be research positions in industry that are a better fit for what you've done so far on paper, but again, these may not be common.
I don't want to discourage you too much, but I'd strongly suggest asking yourself some questions as well: what is your goal in getting a PhD and why are you deciding now that this is a path you want? What are you going to do with your PhD that you wouldn't do without it? Is the PhD truly necessary or is there another path for you to reach your goals?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Yes. I did and several of the people in my cohort did too. We went to a professional MS and continued to PhD directly after graduation. The important is about contacting the professor, and if you have a good conversation and share similar research interests with them, you will be able to get into a PhD program.
Also, don't get disappointed when you get no answer back from the professor. I sent around 20 emails and got only 2 responses. And one of which did not need students this year.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/20
| 1,070
| 4,840
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted a paper to a journal that says the time to first decision is generally X months, and that there are strict deadlines for reviewers to complete their review. After X months were up, I used the journal's internal submission system (Editorial Manager) to send a direct message to the editorial office, with no response. Two weeks after that, I searched the journal website and found an email address of a staff member to contact about the submissions and peer review process. This staff member appears to be a full-time employee of the publisher, rather than an academic. I emailed the staff member, and also got no response. It has now been another month since I emailed the staff member.
Both of my emails were very polite, asking for an update on the peer review process, and this has never happened that the journal staff have simply not responded to communication, especially twice. What should be my next step? I can contact other staff members listed on the journal website (who deal with different matters such as author proofs after the paper is accepted) or I can contact the Editor-in-Chief directly. His email is not listed on the journal website, but I can easily locate his institutional email. What should I do - is it reasonable to email that?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, I think it would be quite reasonable to email a member of the editorial board at this point. I don't think of this as anywhere close to a "nuclear" option -- in my own experience, few of the academics involved in the publication process are intimately familiar with automated submission systems or can vouch for how they are supposed to work. In less favorable circumstances these automated systems can actually function as an obstruction to communication by keeping your message away from the people who are empowered to meaningfully respond to it.
One should make a distinction between this and going over the head of a specific (academic) editor. This latter action might still be appropriate depending upon the situation, but it does carry the risk of ruffling feathers. The journal itself (or again, more likely the enormous company that publishes it) does not really have feathers to be ruffled in this way.
The one thing I would advise is to consider which member of the Editorial Board you wish to contact. As above you are fully "within your rights" to contact the Editor in Chief, but I think you should contact whichever member of the board is most likely to feel a social obligation to respond to you promptly. For instance, if you have met any member of the Editorial Board in person and had non-negative (even if routine) interactions with them, then I would encourage you to contact them. Failing that, if you think there is some member who would find your work of particular interest and/or value you might try them. But if there is no member of the board who stands out as favorable in any way...sure, just write to the Editor in Chief.
You certainly deserve a response. Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: See if the journal has a general email. The individual staff member might no longer be employed by the company. For example the journal *[Physics of the Dark Universe](https://www.editorialmanager.com/dark/default.aspx)* has a general email <EMAIL> (in the "contact the editorial office" tab of that page) which should always reach whoever is in charge of the journal right now.
If the journal lists who is handling what in its journal webpage, then you could email other members of the production staff, but whether they respond will be heavily dependent on the individual. Someone who's handling author proofs is not likely to be involved in, or able to see, the review process; and therefore your request would be "none of their business". They could try to find out for you (e.g. by redirecting you to the actual editor), or they might just ignore you. I know I would always redirect such requests, but I also know some people who are likely to file it away and forget about it.
Publisher-wise there's a last option which is to write to the publisher's general email. You are almost surely going to reach a gatekeeper, but the gatekeeper will know who to redirect your request to. In the case of *Physics of the Dark Universe*, Elsevier has a "[file a complaint](https://www.elsevier.com/support)" form you could use.
Or you could contact the editorial board. In this case I recommend against contacting an individual editor, because in Editorial Manager, individual editors cannot see what other editors are doing. You need more advanced permissions, which means you need to contact one of the more senior editors. If there is a section editor for your field, you could try him/her; otherwise the editor-in-chief will be the person to ask.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/20
| 550
| 1,847
|
<issue_start>username_0: Regarding publishing a paper on mathematics, are very short notes, say a page or two or even half a page, publishable in mathematics?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, see for example [this question](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3099/what-is-the-shortest-paper-in-the-history-of-mathematics) over at History of Science and Mathematics SE. This links to a few papers that are only a page long:
* [Eigenvalues of the Laplace operator on certain manifolds](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300113/?page=1)
* [Counterexample to Euler's Conjecture](http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1966-72-06/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3.pdf)
* [Can n² + 1 unit equilateral triangles cover an equilateral triangle of side > n, say n + ε?](http://fermatslibrary.com/s/shortest-paper-ever-published-in-a-serious-math-journal-john-conway-alexander-soifer)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Two and three page papers are rather common. The Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society used to have a section called "Shorter Notes" that had a page limit of three. This has been ended, but it is easy to find a two-pages paper published there in the past year or so, and many three-page papers.
It seems that two-page papers are often published. At one page and below it is possible but rare enough to be noteworthy.
Back when PAMS had a shorter notes section, it ran this description [see the "about journal" bit](https://www.jstor.org/stable/i335942). "A section called Shorter Notes was established to publish very short papers of unusually elegant and polished character for which there is normally no other outlet."
So at one time it was seen as difficult to publish shorter notes. Perhaps it is easier now that the competition for our attention is the twitter and not a newspaper.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/20
| 595
| 2,037
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I make a formal complaint against my PhD supervisor, where I have evidence of them failing to comply with university policy in Australia, is it reasonable to be afraid that they could essentially try to "blacklist" me (or any other repercussion), as I'm in a close-knit field? Are formal complaints even taken seriously?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, see for example [this question](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3099/what-is-the-shortest-paper-in-the-history-of-mathematics) over at History of Science and Mathematics SE. This links to a few papers that are only a page long:
* [Eigenvalues of the Laplace operator on certain manifolds](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300113/?page=1)
* [Counterexample to Euler's Conjecture](http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1966-72-06/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3.pdf)
* [Can n² + 1 unit equilateral triangles cover an equilateral triangle of side > n, say n + ε?](http://fermatslibrary.com/s/shortest-paper-ever-published-in-a-serious-math-journal-john-conway-alexander-soifer)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Two and three page papers are rather common. The Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society used to have a section called "Shorter Notes" that had a page limit of three. This has been ended, but it is easy to find a two-pages paper published there in the past year or so, and many three-page papers.
It seems that two-page papers are often published. At one page and below it is possible but rare enough to be noteworthy.
Back when PAMS had a shorter notes section, it ran this description [see the "about journal" bit](https://www.jstor.org/stable/i335942). "A section called Shorter Notes was established to publish very short papers of unusually elegant and polished character for which there is normally no other outlet."
So at one time it was seen as difficult to publish shorter notes. Perhaps it is easier now that the competition for our attention is the twitter and not a newspaper.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/20
| 1,507
| 6,705
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the role of a graduate coordinator or graduate chair (I have seen faculty called both) of a department in admissions ? Do they make the final decision or have the final say in all decisions ? How much power do they have in admissions ? This is in North America. The graduate coordinator or graduate chair in question is a faculty member of the department.<issue_comment>username_1: *I assume in this answer that the graduate coordinator is an office person, rather than a faculty member. If they are a faculty member, then this answer doesn't apply, though in that case some of the responsibilities I describe may still fall to that faculty person; besides that, they are likely to have just as much influence as any other faculty member of the admissions committee*
Admissions decisions are made by an admissions committee consisting of several faculty members.
"Graduate coordinator" in my experience refers to an office support staff person. They have expertise in navigating the academic bureaucracy and can be a huge asset in sorting out funding issues and improving the experience of students in the program, but they do not have decision-making authority on admissions.
They may assist the admissions committee by sorting through and excluding some applicants based on particular hard criteria; for example, GPA or TOEFL requirements, having a bachelor's degree or progress towards one. I suppose they could exert some power if they "accidentally" let an application fall in the trash or not get distributed to an admissions committee member, but these would be unofficial ways to express that power and not fitting to university policies.
That said, a graduate coordinator can exert quite a bit of soft power. If an applicant is rude to them, it may very well get back to the committee. I have heard stories where an interviewing student was incredibly rude to a graduate coordinator and this pretty much torpedoed their admissions chances, not because the coordinator had any power but that the committee heard about their behavior and didn't want that person on campus.
If there are problems with your application, it's probably the graduate coordinator who will help you out. For example, there was a recent question here from someone who had submitted their graduate application very early, and they now had updates to their CV: the graduate coordinator would probably be the person who could get their updated CV included in the materials the committee reviews. Same thing for late-arriving reference letters: if there is any discretion to include something arriving late it's likely the graduate coordinator will have some influence.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience (United States), the director of graduate studies is the head of an admissions committee. Did you mean this role when you said graduate admissions coordinator? Committee membership can vary year to year based on faculty's service commitments. This committee often has some rubric to evaluate applications, and each member is responsible for evaluating X number of applications. When it comes to decision making, the committee convenes and discusses the applications to narrow them down to a list of who they would like to admit/extend offers, and sometimes a waitlist is formed. I would say the graduate director has some influence, but each faculty member (based on tenure) has influence in who they might admit because they are looking at students who they might work/do research with. Is this at all helpful?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The graduate coordinator is usually in charge of the paper flow. The coordinator may be a faculty member if the program is small, or a deputy to the graduate chair.
If the coordinator is a faculty member, she or he will usually be on the admissions committee, and will have one vote (although in principle and in cases of emergencies I believe that our grad coordinator has the power to recommend admission without consultation, but that's never been used). If the coordinator is an assistant, this person will support the committee and may or may not be present at committee meetings. The coordinator could be in charge of dealing with emails, distributing and keeping track of information on the availability of funds or scholarships, for instance. She or he would know the rules and regulations of the program, and would basically liaise between the department and the Faculty of Graduate Studies to make sure that applicants meet the eligibility criteria, that the department does not overoffer, etc.
The role is not necessarily limited to admissions: they could be in charge of nominating chairs for thesis defences or project presentations (or whatever other formal requirements of the programs). Often they will sign the departmental paperwork to be sent to the Faculty of Graduate studies indicating that all requirements of the degree have been met.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: (In the context that the person in question is a faculty member, not the support staff for that faculty person...) I have the impression that this varies considerably from department to department, and also varies depending on the person, on the current dept head, and other politics within the dept.
Let's call the person the "DGS" ("director of grad studies", in math).
At my R1 univ in the U.S., in math, the DGS is appointed by the dept head, and needs approval for policy and funding choices, if nothing else.
The DGS has variable influence in choice of the grad admissions committee, which is ultimately done by the dept head. Nevertheless, the DGS is literally the person who would make admission and funding offers to grad student applicants.
Yes, the general task of sifting through all grad applicants is distributed among the grad admissions committee, organized by the DGS. The DGS collates all those reports, and makes decisions.
In some cases, individual faculty (on that committee or not) have particular applicants that they advocate for, which is typically conclusive in the applicant's favor. But this is usually a relatively small fraction of all admitted+funded applicants.
(As is typical in the U.S., the vast majority of math grad students are funded not directly via individual faculty grants, but as Teaching Assistants, or to some degree by Fellowships of various sorts...)
So, yes, the DGS has considerable power in grad admissions (and funding), but is answerable to the dept head, and needs to not annoy toooo many faculty.
(I think in most places the DGS does not literally, directly control the funds that pay teaching assistants or fellowships...)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/20
| 653
| 2,749
|
<issue_start>username_0: I think I heard somewhere that in the USA, a tenureship at a university requires 8 years to obtain.
Is there any way someone can fast-track this process? I.e. can this time period be cut shorter?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, the probation period is usually 6-7 years, with perhaps a mid-term evaluation. Under some circumstances it is normally shortened, but not often for a first position. But in a lot of places negotiation is possible, though you need a really strong negotiating position.
Having "promise" probably isn't enough. There is more to an academic career than productivity. People want to see how compatible you are with others and how you support students at various levels. If you haven't already established that, somehow, you are unlikely to get a shorter period before final decisions are made. In fact, if a dean hires you without a probationary period, other faculty may well object. (See the superstar exemption, below.)
But, for someone hired from another institution, perhaps already tenured there, but possibly in later years of a TT position, the probation period might be two years. This assumes that the person already has a good academic record, research, teaching, ...
And, superstars can be hired (many/most places) without probation.
It is likely, also, that there are places with inflexible rules.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Every university will be different, both in terms of the "default" tenure clock as well as the mechanisms for going up for tenure early.
At my university, it is possible to apply early for tenure. Such cases receive extra scrutiny from the various evaluation committees, so it's very rarely attempted (the only cases I'm aware of are professors who spent some years at the Assistant level at a different university and then transferred in), but it's available.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: **Yes**. The time to get tenure can be as short as 0 years. I know people (a small number, to be sure) who received a tenured job offer straight out of a postdoc.
In US mathematics departments it is also extremely uncommon for someone to take 8 years to be given tenure counting from the time the tenure track position starts. At my own department, 2-6 years is typical depending on the level of experience the person had when they started their position, and of course on how productive they are. I suppose if you count from the date of the PhD, 8 years is perhaps closer to typical.
In general, the way to fast-track the process is to be really, really good, and/or to have job offers from other universities. But as I said, the assumption that without fast-tracking it will take 8 years is not quite accurate.
Upvotes: 5
|
2021/07/21
| 1,048
| 4,288
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am interested in a position that is advertised at the Assistant level but I already have been promoted to Associate at the same university but in a different department. In theory, if I were chosen, is it legal for the University to hire me in the new position at my current Associate rank even though the position was listed at the Assistant level?<issue_comment>username_1: It is my impression that, in the U.S., whatever position is filled needs to have been advertised: to fill a position at a different level than advertised would have misled/deceived potential candidates.
But the enforcement mechanism is weak, so far as I can tell, so that if the administration has ok'd such a hire (for whatever reason) there's probably no other actor in the scene who can effectively object or complain.
One extreme case where no one would object, if you're already at level X in dept A, and change to level X in dept B in the same university, is if your *line\_item* is transferred from dept A to dept B. But I'd suspect that dept A would not want to give up a line item in their budget.
The most up-and-up approach here would be to suggest/request of dept B that they modify their advertised position (with sufficient lead time to be fair). An obstacle might be that their Dean does not necessarily want to "give them" another already-tenured slot.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The specific wording of the posting, combined with specific HR policies, are important. Perusing one US university's hiring page (name withheld since it is not important), I found a number of variations:
>
> XXX invites applicants for an Assistant Professor position... Seasoned untenured professors will be considered.
>
>
>
OK, pretty clear that a tenured professor would not fit the posting.
>
> XXX is seeking to fill a tenure-track faculty position... This is a tenure track position at a rank fitting with the candidate’s record of accomplishments.
>
>
>
Pretty much anything goes here.
>
> These new positions are open-rank, long-term, full-time, on-campus, non-tenure-track positions that can be focused on teaching, research, or a combination of both.
>
>
>
Not tenure track, but you could apply if you wanted to.
>
> XXX invites applications for tenured or tenure‐track faculty position in YYY...
>
>
>
Anything goes.
>
> The tenure-track position will be hired at the rank of full professor...
>
>
>
Unlikely to hire a postdoc into a full professor position, but it does not rule out a current Associate professor from applying.
Some have breadth stated explicitly, some don't. However, one would perhaps have to dig deeper into the HR policies of the institution to see what, if anything, they allow to be done, including altering the posting in situ, reposting at a different job level for an attractive candidate, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm going to focus on the US, I think other countries are likely to be rather different. The US has relatively few rules around hiring and firing. There's no law requiring positions to be advertised! Universities can and do routinely hire people outside of the standard search process, and can and do routinely hire at levels or areas that do not match the advertisement. A key word here is "target of opportunity," and I have been offered a job as a target of opportunity and have been involved in trying to hire people as targets of opportunity.
Nonetheless, there's real constraints on this happening. Legally the main constraint is that it can be difficult to get a work visa for someone who was not hired through a regular search, so if you are not a permanent resident there may be complications. A secondary legal issue is that although you're not required to be fair in hiring, there are certain specific ways of being unfair which are banned ("protected categories" such as race, religion, or being over-40).
The main constraint isn't legal, but rather administrative. Getting approval to hire for a position involves a dean and a provost, and hiring outside the approved position requires going back through the chain of command again. This means there's a lot more veto points where people might not approve a hire outside of the search parameters.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/21
| 4,797
| 19,306
|
<issue_start>username_0: I teach a module in an electrical engineering MSc programme in the UK for which the students are given a technical project that carries 25% of the total marks. The project is a group assignment and the students work in teams of 3-4 members.
This year, four out of six teams submitted identical assignments (the only differences were their names on the cover page).
In our school, we are expected to flag cases of suspected plagiarism and collusion to an internal academic offences committee. If I do that, the most likely scenario is that they will all get a zero mark in this assignment.
My main concern is that if this happens, the module will have a very high failure rate. These students will need to score at least 75% in the final exam and taking into account their progress hitherto (which has been disappointingly poor), it is more likely for a camel to... pass the module.
Moreover, I expect that the committee will rule that all students get a zero - both the ones who copied the answers, and the one(s) who provided them. At least this was the case last year when a similar case of collusion was taken to the academic offences committee. I'm not sure this is fair to those students who spend time and effort to do the assignment.
Some months ago I had a chat with a colleague, who suggested that there's a cultural aspect to the students' understanding of the concepts of collusion and plagiarism - an opinion that I also found in this [blog post by TurnitIn](https://www.turnitin.com/blog/cultural-differences-in-plagiarism) and [this paper](https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/243096-plagiarism-across-cultures-is-there-a-di-9900dd5e.pdf) that is cited therein. I'm mentioning this because the students who colluded in my class are all international. Although I'm not convinced by the idea that they may simply not understand that copying an other team's assignment is wrong (they are MSc students after all), I can acknowledge that I may be missing something. I should mention that at the beginning of the semester, there was a series of induction events in which we tried to define very clearly the concepts of plagiarism and collusion.
An additional complication is that high failure rates are frowned upon in our department. It's an unwritten rule that the ideal failure rate is 0% and I'm already feeling pressure from the other modules I teach where I get ~15% failures every year. This is also a new module and I don't want it to have a bad reputation.
My question is: **should I should report them to the academic offences committee given that they will fail my module and as a result the MSc?** If so, they will have the right to resit the final exam in October, but they'll still need to score >75%. My other option is to turn a blind eye (in principle we do that for minor infractions), but I don't think this is right. Besides, it may give them the message that they'll pass the final exam even if they don't put in any effort. I do not have the option to give them some other punishment without referring them to the committee.
**Update:** Many thanks for your answers. Today I reported this to the academic offences committee. I presented all the evidence to the committee, but I will not participate in the investigation, which I believe is fair. I think the university has unequivocally communicated its regulations regarding academic offences, so as @Allure wrote *dura lex sed lex*. In my opinion it is both partonising and condescending to suggest that international students should be treated differently or more leniently and even that they cannot understand what collusion is; they have the right to chose to collude and should face the consequences. I do have some concerns about the severity of the consequences, but as it stands, these are the rules. Lastly - and this is a more philosophical question that has nothing to do with blatant verbatim copying - I wonder whether there is indeed a significant difference "[across cultures](https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/243096-plagiarism-across-cultures-is-there-a-di-9900dd5e.pdf)," but this is a different topic altogether.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> In our school, we are expected to flag cases of suspected plagiarism
> and collusion to an internal academic offences committee.
>
>
>
There's your answer. It's your job to report the offense.
Upvotes: 9 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You should. *[Dura lex sed lex](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-591)*. Not reporting it sends the message that plagiarism is OK if enough people do it.
The grim consequences you envisage (like departmental disapproval) might not come to pass - after all you can't control if your students decide to cheat. Conversely, I would feel disturbed if the instructor passed cheating students to avoid high failure rates.
As for the students failing the MSc because you failed them in your module, to quote from [an answer to another question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/46267):
>
> Sometimes a student's failure is a teaching success.
>
>
> The lesson is just not the one you wished that you were teaching.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: The way I see it, my employer pays me to evaluate my students’ knowledge of the material I taught them. I am ethically bound to give only grades that reflect my honest assessment.
In particular, if an assignment is turned in that I know to be plagiarized, I cannot in good faith give it a grade of more than zero. The student who submitted it has not credibly demonstrated any knowledge, so to do otherwise would be a betrayal of the trust my institution places in me to carry out the job I was assigned to do.
The distinction between students who copied and students who allowed others to copy from them is a bogus one. Both are cheaters, and in practice it is usually impossible to know to which of these two categories a student belongs. [There is no logical policy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/111410/40589) other than to treat all students who participated in such a collusion scheme as if they cheated and did not do the assignment, even if in fact some of them did.
The allowance you are thinking of making for “cultural” values of “international” students is disrespectful to honest students, who hail from all different countries, including the same geographical regions as the cheating students who supposedly have a misguided understanding of what plagiarism is. You should treat people as individuals, who are adults capable of making their own decisions and need to live with the consequences of those decisions.
The argument that reporting the cheating students will result in a high failure rate is neither here nor there. Perhaps your program needs to do some soul searching about what they might be doing that results in such massive cheating scandals occurring (and the high failure rate that follows them), and what they can be doing to prevent them in the future. But [it’s not your place as an individual instructor](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/170169/40589) to take such high-level questions into account and substitute your own personal justice for whatever the institutional policies say needs to happen in such a situation.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: **Yes, you should report them**. It's the official policy, and it's also the right thing to do. It helps you by spreading out the responsibility for the failures (or whatever). Given the academic level and introductory anti-cheating module, it's overwhelmingly likely that these students have been cheating through their entire academic career, and have grown accustomed to being given a pass every time in this same fashion.
[As I wrote in this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/170173/43544):
>
> If these are university students, then it seems to me overwhelmingly
> likely that what's happened is a reflection of prior habits they've
> been following for... maybe 12+ years now? I'd say at this point it's
> naive to think this is truly "the first offense". What if these
> students are cheating at work in every single one of their college
> courses, and then pleading "first offense" or "didn't know" (very
> common, and should be disregarded as utterly unbelievable), and so are
> given this allowance continually throughout their program sequence?
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: If 2/3 colluded and they were all international students, then that is proof that this was due to misunderstanding. When I had to do experimental work at university, the set-up was that we had to work in groups of two, a report was to be written and we would be be graded based on the report. But it was then one report per group of two students, the grade applied to both students and usually one student would write most of the report. This sort of a system is common practice in many universities, so this may be the source of the misunderstanding.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: Something doesn't add up: Obviously, the students didn't think what they did was forbidden because they didn't try to hide the fact that the papers were identical. Probably, because they were supposed to cooperate to begin with, they falsely assumed it's OK to cooperate across groups. As with most misunderstandings the fault may not be exclusively on one side, which is the reason for my suggestion:
Have a session where you explain the rules in unambiguous terms. If there is a language barrier or something similar, make them take a 5 minute test afterwards that lets them decide whether a few choice scenarios are proper behavior or not.
Invalidate the project for all those who submitted the identical results. Have them retake an equivalent assignment or, if that's impossible due to time constraint or lab hours etc., an exam. Make it optional for the others, for fairness, to participate in the replacement project/test if they wish to improve their grades.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> ...copying an other team's assignment is wrong.
>
>
>
tl;dr;
------
It might help you decide what to do by considering deeply what you mean by "wrong". AFAIK, there is nothing Biblical (or Koranical, or [insert totally objective moral dogma here]) that governs your behavior in this specific scenario. Will reporting them to the university office create a situation that is more "right", in your view? Will doing something else create a situation that is more "right"? Ultimately, your ethical system is *yours*, and as an educator you should really make an attempt to navigate these waters for yourself (with some aid, perhaps, from other stackoverflowers).
tfa
---
Probably, it is not the case that you consider plagiarism to be a moral error [in-and-of itself](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/). Often, I find that educators have vague notions that individual plagiarism causes some further inherent ill much later (e.g. at time of employment), or slippery-slope logic leads to a conclusion that plagiarism can cause class-wide problems. There are possibly other considerations that are valid, for example [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/171360/88505) implies that if you give your word to do a thing (possibly implicitly by accepting payment for a job), then it would be inherently wrong to not do that thing. I would consider this valid. You may or may not be of this opinion. However, many academic positions give a great deal of leeway to professors when deciding how to implement policies in their classes, so this consideration may not even apply.
Personally, my strongest ethical motivator is that I feel that knowledge of science is an inherent good. As a science educator, this implies for me an ethical responsibility to educate. Perhaps more strongly, I feel an ethical responsibility to educate *despite what my educatees may or may not want*. If I have taken on the duty to educate student X, and student X doesn't want to be educated, then this does not relieve me of my duty to educate them.
In this context, if student X is utilizing plagiarism to shirk their studies, then I feel ethically bound to take steps to prevent (!=punish) this thing. What steps to take? If pursuing a particular course of action regarding their plagiarism will cause student X to, for example, be expelled from the program, then I would want to consider carefully my actions. Possibly this will open a spot for another student who will actually learn, allowing me to fulfill my duty to educate. Possibly such an open spot will only be filled by a student with similar habits, in which case I would want to find a method that would actually prevent these actions rather than simply flunking a never-ending cycle of plagiaristic students.
In this same context, it may be the case that student X is diligently pursuing their studies, but is simply using plagiarism as a tool to pass a class that they may otherwise not be able to pass, or to get an "A" having actually "earned" a "B". In this case, pursuing an action that would cause student X to be ejected from the program would be antithetical to my duty to educate, and would therefore, in my ethical system, be wrong. I may have other ethical duties due to official university policies requiring me to sort students by ability with maximum efficiency and accuracy. To me, these are secondary to my ethical duty to educate.
As such, if I were in your scenario, I would have some delving to do. Is it actually the case that these students were utterly incapable of completing the assignment? If so, then this assignment probably isn't very educational (which is the primary purpose of assignments, IMHO). Perhaps I should give a different assignment to replace it. Is it actually the case that students are simply shirking their studies? If so, then perhaps I should re-assign the same or a similar assignment of comparable difficulty, letting students know that they must actually be diligent in their studies. Have these students been shirking their studies repeatedly, even after similar attempts to encourage them to diligence? Then perhaps these students are simply lost, and you should report them to the appropriate department so that they can be replaced with students who will actually attempt to learn.
All of this is not to say that you should follow this suit. This is simply to say that perhaps the ethics of the situation are not so simple as to admit a black-and-white answer. Or perhaps they are. Since you will be dealing with this ethical conundrum for years to come, you should really make efforts to come to a system that *you* find ethically consistent.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: I know you already reported this (which I think was the right thing to do), but for future readers, let me take another angle on this. Specifically, I'd like to focus on this paragraph:
>
> Moreover, I expect that the committee will rule that all students get a zero - both the ones who copied the answers, and the one(s) who provided them. At least this was the case last year when a similar case of collusion was taken to the academic offences committee. I'm not sure this is fair to those students who spend time and effort to do the assignment.
>
>
>
That being said, would it be fair to the students that were punished last year if these students received no penalty whatsoever for an identical offense? Policies need to be enforced uniformly (or not at all) to avoid arbitrariness.
It would also be unfair to the two teams that completed their own work, because the 3 teams that evidently put forth no effort whatsoever would be graded as if they had actually done the assignment.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: I see you've already taken action so this comment is late. Something for you and others to consider maybe is:
* You are correct this work should be graded zero.
* However maybe you could give them an opportunity to remedy their error?
* Reject the plagiarised work, and give them a stern talking to, explaining why you have rejected it, and explaining that they were warned and should know better.
* Give them a tight new deadline to redo the work to the proper standard and resubmit. Explain the consequences if this is not done. Explain that they are on the edge of being banned from the university (or whatever the likely max punishment would be from the Academic Offences Committee).
* Keep your line manager / Department Head informed of this and your actions.
* Likely they will still fail the course, but at least you gave them a chance to remedy their errors and they have learned from this.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: A few things:
* it is important to report it, even if there is no punishment past "they have to redo the assignment and not collude" (which is more work for you of course) - reason being, there are serial cheaters and they "get by" by apologizing profusely if caught
* no matter what they do, it will likely be more work for you OR you will be completely disillusioned (which happened to me when I reported multiple cheating incidents and they said "you didn't say explicitly they couldn't copy"...)
* glad you actually care
* finally, give them slightly different assignments - 3 vs. 4 variables, 100 vs. 200 ohm resistors, whatever. It's a little more annoying to grade, but if they collude to get the right answers, they should be learning something!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Yes, absolutely without question. In fact, I've seen situations where the majority of the class cheated. It's not pretty, but it's been done before.
This isn't playground hair-pulling or petty vengeance, academic integrity is sacred and it's right to report it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: I totally agree with the other answers, you should definitely report this.
An aspect of the situation which I think other posts did not mention: you don't actually know that two-thirds colluded.
>
> The project is a group assignment and the students work in teams of
> 3-4 members.
>
>
> This year, four out of six teams submitted identical assignments (the
> only differences were their names on the cover page).
>
>
>
It is very easy to not cheat when you work alone. **When you are in a team of 3 or 4, your work will be plagiarised if there is one rogue team member. This can happen without your knowledge.**
So, the most you can say, is that there is at least 1 person in each group who colluded with others.
*It seems to me that it is unreasonable to assign 25% of the total marks for a group project, and then get punished for plagiarism, when the University cannot prove that every individual was aware of what is going on*. You cannot expect from each team member to evaluate whether another team member's contribution is original or plagiarised.
My undergraduate Physics course included a part when 3-4 students worked together, but that project carried less than 0.5% of total marks, which I think is reasonable. 25% is ludicrous.
Nevertheless, this is not your problem. If you can influence these aspects of the course in the future, I would advise you to do so. Report collusion.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/21
| 2,351
| 10,068
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have not been having a good time in my personal life over the last ~9 months, and I’m currently having therapy (fortnightly) and taking antidepressants. I don’t have a depression diagnosis but I have symptoms of them. I can still study and be productive in my academic work, which I’m very excited about.
But I wonder if I should completely avoid the topic of my mental health problems should it come up in conversations (“how are things going?”). My supervisor is hands off and my field is not lab-based, but still I might have therapy appointments during traditional working hours.
I don’t really know what the disadvantages of mentioning the topic are, but since this is a sensitive topic, I thought it’s better to ask beforehand.<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest not mentioning it unless it becomes an issue. Your medical condition and treatment is your own business. And you are indicating no issues with your progress. Let it go. You are doing the right thing by taking your meds.
If asked about an absence for therapy, just indicate a doctor's appointment.
In a non-lab based field, the specific hours you work are up to you, as long as there are no objections. I was able to take bike rides or play racketball during the day, but worked at other times. Since this didn't interfere with meetings and such, there was no issue. (It helped my mental health, actually.)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is highly advisor-dependent! I'll first give an answer from my perspective, and then some advice on whether that applies to your advisor.
My experience in advising is that when students are dealing with anxiety or depression that I can do a better job giving good advice when the student is somewhat forthright about what's going on. So if you were my student I'd certainly appreciate a quick heads up. I don't think medication as-such is relevant, but giving some insight into what you're going through and that you're taking steps to help would be good information. In particular, I'd find it helpful to know that a student was seeing a therapist because sometimes there's topics (e.g. perfectionism, writer's block, avoidance) where I can give some advice (especially if it's specific to mathematical writing) but where it'd also be good to be able to suggest that certain aspects I'd noticed might be more a topic for discussion with your therapist. Of course, there's no obligation to disclose any of this, and this is entirely up to the student.
That said, a lot of advisors are going to have a rather different take on these matters, so you're going to want some indication that your advisor would be open to a mental health discussion. First, think through whether they've brought things up before which indicates that they'd be open to this. Second, you might bring it up more vaguely, for example saying you've been unhappy this year and have struggled a little with motivation, and if your advisor steers things in an appropriate direction (e.g. suggests mental health resources) then that's a good sign that further conversation is ok.
(As an aside for advisors, I've been thinking about how one makes more clear early on that it's ok to talk about mental health if the student wants to. One thing I've been thinking about is always having a brief discussion of mental health resources in the context of preparing for oral exams, which are a very common flashpoint for anxiety and which are also very early in the advising relationhsip.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Disclaimer: I had similar issues during my masters thesis, w/o the anti-depressants. In hindsight I probably should have talked to my advisors about my problems, but I totally agree with anyone saying that it is highly depending on your advisors. Mine very likely would have been understanding.
---
If you feel comfortable enough, talk to someone besides your therapist. It could be your advisor, it could be someone from your research group, or even someone not work related. Play concerns about the impact of your illness (yes, a depression is an illness - in many cases cureable, in few chronic) on your work by them - get their perspective and don't leave yourself to wallow in your own thoughts. That's not adviseable.
I noticed (way too late) that I wasn't anymore able to think outside the box and clearly reflect my research during that period and it absolutely showed in my thesis. Depending on how severe your depression becomes, you might even not be able to show up to work - this is definitely the point you should already have talked to your advisor.
I suggest you talk way earlier to them. Try to work out a system of adapted feedback. Make them be on the lookout for "unusual" flaws in your work - not in order to correct you, since you can't function as "normal", but in order to point out if you should take a break, take some days off and recharge. Don't fall into the pit trap as I did. Because in the end delivering shoddy work will inconvenient your advisor significantly worse than the need for increased advisional effort on their side and a slightly longer delivery time on your thesis.
I know it can be incredibly hard to talk about this and to ask for help. Nobody forces you - but chances are that people are understanding and helpful. Take this chance.
Please remember: There's nothing wrong with you being depressed - these things happen, especially under the current pandemic situation. Just like a broken leg, it will heal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: If you have a therapist already, you should ask them for their advice rather than trust amateurs like us to help you. It's what they're for, isn't it?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I tend to agree with the other answers, I'll add this advice.
>
> But I wonder if I should completely avoid the topic of my mental health problems should it come up in conversations (“how are things going?”).
>
>
>
### Trust your instinct, avoid it if that's workable.
Here are some things to consider:
* *The sharing of information is permanent* and can not be undone nor constrained. No matter what your *current assessment* of your supervisor is right now, situations change and evolve. Should other issues arise in the future, you can not limit how and when your supervisor may choose to share this information with others, conversationally or in emails or messages , that you may never know about. And those have a way of diffusing even further. A good meaning supervisor may tell another lab member to be more courteous or helpful to you in an well-meaning way, but that person may react... sub-optimally.
* *People can not control their unconscious biases* and without knowing your supervisor and potentially other people who then have this information may view you through a lens of suspicion. Something breaks or is stolen, there is a complaint, a bit of research has been duplicated and published elsewhere... Despite what we like to think, the veneer of rationality on human thought is pretty thin.
Unless there is a very necessary and compelling reason, don't share personal medical information in the workplace, especially that which relates to mental health.
### "How are things going?"
is *usually* not an invitation to open up and bear one's personal challenges or difficulties, It can be; in fact it can be said with all kinds of different intents, but unless someone goes out of their way to indicate they really are asking about your personal life, they may be completely surprised and not pleased if the conversation goes serious.
And even if you suspect it's an invitation to open up about something personal, unless you have strong reasons to believe it's 100% motivated by a willingness to help and you can trust the person to keep your information confidential forever, you don't really know why they are asking nor what they will do with the information you share.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Sorry to hear about this. I don't know if it provides any consolation, but it is a sadly common story. The relationship I had with my supervisor was very much a professional one and he wasn't one I would have turned to for any form of moral or emotional support. I find that is quite a common situation. However if there are matters that are affecting your performance, then you should discuss that there are issues (even without going into specifics) as there will be questions raised as to why dates are not being met, productivity is low etc anyhow so you will need an answer. It is possible though that you can continue and still be able to make sufficient progress. Unfortunately I fell into a lull for both personal matters and those beyond my control, and while I finished, it was long after the original planned date. I would also say that universities in general are usually quite sensitive to such issues and they should have support services. You might want to look into this, but I think they tend to deal more with undergraduates.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: 'OK, so you've got problems. That isn't MY problem. Can you do the work or can't you?'
That is not something you're likely to hear today an academia, or even in many workplaces. (I HOPE you still would in the military, or in an operating theatre...)
There's no downside to admitting your problem. There may even be an advantage. That's today's game. You might as well play it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: The following are my personal thoughts about it:
If your job and personal life are completely different and dissociated from each other, then you don't really need to, as long as your problems don't affect your work.
However, if you think your health can affect your efficiency at work, you should talk to your supervisor about it. You can avoid talking about the details, but just let him/her know you don't feel well in your personal life, and he/she might understand that it's not always easy.
Good luck with whatever you are going through! We're all with you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/21
| 2,479
| 10,580
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have started an academic book club but I somewhat have a hard time with it. We are reading a slightly complicated text, so I decided to do a slow-paced reading; but up until now, only one person attended each session. Others seemed to have drifted off, or to be too busy to attend regularly.
So I was wondering if any had some experience with organizing online book clubs, and could transmit some of its best tips to me?
In particular, I was wondering:
* how I can recruit the best people?
* Should I remove members if needed ? (not that it is needed at the moment, but some people who are in the group have not attended any reading session, so I was wondering if I should message them and remove them from the group if not participating? Also linked to this: should I post a group-rule ahead of time, mentioning that attendance is required to stay in the group?)
* How do I keep people engaged?
* How to decide what books to read? (Do I make a pre-selection? Should I do polls? What I was thinking of doing now, is discussing it during a meeting but I don't know if that is the best solution)
* Should I make slides? Or should I just let the discussion go freely?
If anyone has any resources that they found useful, I'd love to know!
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest not mentioning it unless it becomes an issue. Your medical condition and treatment is your own business. And you are indicating no issues with your progress. Let it go. You are doing the right thing by taking your meds.
If asked about an absence for therapy, just indicate a doctor's appointment.
In a non-lab based field, the specific hours you work are up to you, as long as there are no objections. I was able to take bike rides or play racketball during the day, but worked at other times. Since this didn't interfere with meetings and such, there was no issue. (It helped my mental health, actually.)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is highly advisor-dependent! I'll first give an answer from my perspective, and then some advice on whether that applies to your advisor.
My experience in advising is that when students are dealing with anxiety or depression that I can do a better job giving good advice when the student is somewhat forthright about what's going on. So if you were my student I'd certainly appreciate a quick heads up. I don't think medication as-such is relevant, but giving some insight into what you're going through and that you're taking steps to help would be good information. In particular, I'd find it helpful to know that a student was seeing a therapist because sometimes there's topics (e.g. perfectionism, writer's block, avoidance) where I can give some advice (especially if it's specific to mathematical writing) but where it'd also be good to be able to suggest that certain aspects I'd noticed might be more a topic for discussion with your therapist. Of course, there's no obligation to disclose any of this, and this is entirely up to the student.
That said, a lot of advisors are going to have a rather different take on these matters, so you're going to want some indication that your advisor would be open to a mental health discussion. First, think through whether they've brought things up before which indicates that they'd be open to this. Second, you might bring it up more vaguely, for example saying you've been unhappy this year and have struggled a little with motivation, and if your advisor steers things in an appropriate direction (e.g. suggests mental health resources) then that's a good sign that further conversation is ok.
(As an aside for advisors, I've been thinking about how one makes more clear early on that it's ok to talk about mental health if the student wants to. One thing I've been thinking about is always having a brief discussion of mental health resources in the context of preparing for oral exams, which are a very common flashpoint for anxiety and which are also very early in the advising relationhsip.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Disclaimer: I had similar issues during my masters thesis, w/o the anti-depressants. In hindsight I probably should have talked to my advisors about my problems, but I totally agree with anyone saying that it is highly depending on your advisors. Mine very likely would have been understanding.
---
If you feel comfortable enough, talk to someone besides your therapist. It could be your advisor, it could be someone from your research group, or even someone not work related. Play concerns about the impact of your illness (yes, a depression is an illness - in many cases cureable, in few chronic) on your work by them - get their perspective and don't leave yourself to wallow in your own thoughts. That's not adviseable.
I noticed (way too late) that I wasn't anymore able to think outside the box and clearly reflect my research during that period and it absolutely showed in my thesis. Depending on how severe your depression becomes, you might even not be able to show up to work - this is definitely the point you should already have talked to your advisor.
I suggest you talk way earlier to them. Try to work out a system of adapted feedback. Make them be on the lookout for "unusual" flaws in your work - not in order to correct you, since you can't function as "normal", but in order to point out if you should take a break, take some days off and recharge. Don't fall into the pit trap as I did. Because in the end delivering shoddy work will inconvenient your advisor significantly worse than the need for increased advisional effort on their side and a slightly longer delivery time on your thesis.
I know it can be incredibly hard to talk about this and to ask for help. Nobody forces you - but chances are that people are understanding and helpful. Take this chance.
Please remember: There's nothing wrong with you being depressed - these things happen, especially under the current pandemic situation. Just like a broken leg, it will heal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: If you have a therapist already, you should ask them for their advice rather than trust amateurs like us to help you. It's what they're for, isn't it?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I tend to agree with the other answers, I'll add this advice.
>
> But I wonder if I should completely avoid the topic of my mental health problems should it come up in conversations (“how are things going?”).
>
>
>
### Trust your instinct, avoid it if that's workable.
Here are some things to consider:
* *The sharing of information is permanent* and can not be undone nor constrained. No matter what your *current assessment* of your supervisor is right now, situations change and evolve. Should other issues arise in the future, you can not limit how and when your supervisor may choose to share this information with others, conversationally or in emails or messages , that you may never know about. And those have a way of diffusing even further. A good meaning supervisor may tell another lab member to be more courteous or helpful to you in an well-meaning way, but that person may react... sub-optimally.
* *People can not control their unconscious biases* and without knowing your supervisor and potentially other people who then have this information may view you through a lens of suspicion. Something breaks or is stolen, there is a complaint, a bit of research has been duplicated and published elsewhere... Despite what we like to think, the veneer of rationality on human thought is pretty thin.
Unless there is a very necessary and compelling reason, don't share personal medical information in the workplace, especially that which relates to mental health.
### "How are things going?"
is *usually* not an invitation to open up and bear one's personal challenges or difficulties, It can be; in fact it can be said with all kinds of different intents, but unless someone goes out of their way to indicate they really are asking about your personal life, they may be completely surprised and not pleased if the conversation goes serious.
And even if you suspect it's an invitation to open up about something personal, unless you have strong reasons to believe it's 100% motivated by a willingness to help and you can trust the person to keep your information confidential forever, you don't really know why they are asking nor what they will do with the information you share.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Sorry to hear about this. I don't know if it provides any consolation, but it is a sadly common story. The relationship I had with my supervisor was very much a professional one and he wasn't one I would have turned to for any form of moral or emotional support. I find that is quite a common situation. However if there are matters that are affecting your performance, then you should discuss that there are issues (even without going into specifics) as there will be questions raised as to why dates are not being met, productivity is low etc anyhow so you will need an answer. It is possible though that you can continue and still be able to make sufficient progress. Unfortunately I fell into a lull for both personal matters and those beyond my control, and while I finished, it was long after the original planned date. I would also say that universities in general are usually quite sensitive to such issues and they should have support services. You might want to look into this, but I think they tend to deal more with undergraduates.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: 'OK, so you've got problems. That isn't MY problem. Can you do the work or can't you?'
That is not something you're likely to hear today an academia, or even in many workplaces. (I HOPE you still would in the military, or in an operating theatre...)
There's no downside to admitting your problem. There may even be an advantage. That's today's game. You might as well play it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: The following are my personal thoughts about it:
If your job and personal life are completely different and dissociated from each other, then you don't really need to, as long as your problems don't affect your work.
However, if you think your health can affect your efficiency at work, you should talk to your supervisor about it. You can avoid talking about the details, but just let him/her know you don't feel well in your personal life, and he/she might understand that it's not always easy.
Good luck with whatever you are going through! We're all with you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/21
| 985
| 4,225
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a new tenure-track faculty (just completed my first year). Recently, I realized that two groups of senior faculty members have been spreading rumors about me: one group walked around saying that I lied about the PhD program I graduated from (I never said such a thing); the other group walked around saying that I spoke very negatively about my colleagues to them (a faculty member in the group asked me to do very unreasonable things (cook for her, take care of her plants, book a restaurant for her) and so I had distanced myself from her).
I talked with my division chair. The advice is to "let all go" because there is nothing I can do; I can submit a petition in case I fail in my reappointment or tenure review because of the rumors.
However, I now understand why my chair and colleagues were very tough to me when I interacted with them. Any advice will be really appreciated.
By the way, I am in a very huge department — about 40 professors. From the first group — a person started the rumors; and from the other group — two people started them. However, as I heard, almost all professors in my department heard about them, especially since these three professors are very active and influential in my department.<issue_comment>username_1: At some universities there will be a faculty **ombudsman** or **ombuds**, whom you might consider talking to. Their job is to listen to faculty concerns, discuss your options with you, and offer advice.
Generally speaking, they don't have any formal authority, they maintain confidentiality, and they don't intervene in conflicts. In your situation, you might expect the ombuds to: listen sympathetically; let you know how common your situation is; make you aware of any relevant formal processes you could consider, and discuss what the outcome might be; offer advice on how to "let it go" in practice, if you choose to go that route.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: What relief are you hoping for here? You don't claim to have suffered any tangible harm yet. Unless you work in an unusually restrictive society or department, gossip alone is probably not against any laws or employment rules that the administration can enforce. You can document it in case it becomes relevant later.
Advancement at most universities is supposed to be based on performance, not on whether some faculty like or dislike you as a person. If/when you fail to achieve advancement (salary raises, promotion, etc.) while having met or exceeded performance standards, then you can appeal to the chair or other administration for relief.
In the meantime, you can try to make friends with those or other faculty to reduce their motivation to gossip about you. This should not be necessary though; performance alone should be sufficient for advancement at your university or being hired at other departments.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I can make a few suggestions. One or the other might be worth considering.
If it is only a few people in a large department then you can probably safely ignore it, especially if they form a clique and if you have the support of the head.
If it is worse than that, they consider moving to a different position. It isn't necessary to make a panic search, but keep your eyes open for opportunities and try to meet people who might turn in to collaborators at conferences and such. Make a few discrete inquiries. Hostile environment is a valid reason for moving.
If neither of the above seem right then spend some effort making allies/friends/collaborators within the department so that many people have a more positive view of you and your work. A few jerks in the department isn't necessarily a serious problem, though the gossip can be problematic. But if you have a circle of friendly voices to quiet the jerks you can do ok.
Building a circle of "friendly relations" in a department is always a good idea in any case.
Note a possible issue. I've been places where the opinions and suggestions of the new person are definitely not welcome. They have their ways of doing things and resent any suggestion that change would be good. You may need to "keep your head down" if you detect that attitude.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/21
| 435
| 1,880
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently living abroad in japan and looking to start college online from an American university. The problem is that any biotech course I'm interested in requires a lab portion to be done physically. So is there anyway to complete a lab assignment, specifically a biology based one, at a foreign college? And if so would there be any catches like having to pay a fee?<issue_comment>username_1: It's possible depending on the collaboration you can make with the varsity that you want to run your lab sessions. And this can be done with the other help of the varsity that you are in enrolled in. So it's your duty to discuss with the management of your University so that you can be given legitimate papers for you to run lab operations in the other university.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it is possible.
My college advisor has a good impression on me. I graduated few years ago, but recently we make contact and start to collaborate on projects while I am still taking a full-time job. So from my *humble experience, it is all about time management and trust from others on you*. But I do keep this secret from my co-workers to avoid troubles.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: **Ask the American university, and look before you leap.** If they are offering online programs, then it's their responsibility to provide a pathway for you to satisfy the degree requirements.
In my estimation, the odds that a Japanese university would be willing to supervise an American university's lab assignments are low; the odds that they would do it for free are lower still. You *might* be able to take entire lab-based *courses* at a Japanese university, and then apply for transfer credit.
Before enrolling in any online program I recommend that you first ask lots of questions and make sure that their program fits your needs.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/21
| 806
| 3,416
|
<issue_start>username_0: For my master thesis, I worked on a topic that was new both for me, and my supervising professor. Because of that, we missed a well-known paper of our field, and I basically rediscovered the same idea.
We tried to publish it in two conferences, but it was rejected both times (unfortunately, no one pointed out that the work already existed, it was rejected because of too low impact according to the referees). Currently, it is published on arXiv. We are working on an updated version that includes a reference to the existing paper, and highlights that our results were discovered independently but are not novel.
To make matters worse, I also made a mistake in the central proof, so while the idea is correct, the conclusion needs to be weakened (that was done correctly in the original work).
Now, I am a Ph.D. student working for the same advisor. The paper has not been cited so far, but we will need to refer to it soon in a public report about a software we wrote, based on our technique. Also, my advisor is not in favor of taking down the paper entirely.
I felt bad about this for a while, but have come to terms with it now. While it is a bit embarrassing, I guess mistakes happen and there was no malintent. I am making up for it by doing an extensive literature review now, to avoid making the same mistake twice.
My question is about how to refer to this paper in my CV (or when presenting myself in general). I do have several other papers already, some of them in high-impact conferences with many citations (in a different sub-field). Currently, I have a section of my CV dedicated to those papers.
I'm not sure excluding the questionable paper is a good idea, because I don't want to make the impression that I'm trying to hide it. But I also want to make clear that I'm aware of the flaws, in a way that doesn't harm my overall appearance.
The general format of my list of publications is as follows:
```
[Paper title], [authors], [conference name], [acceptance rate], [number of citations]
- Main contribution
- Second contribution
```
I'm thinking about using something like this:
```
[Questionable paper title], [authors], non-peer reviewed (arXiv)
- Independently discovered [known technique]
```
This would not hide the fact that it's known, but also doesn't put too much focus on the paper. Also, it doesn't stress the fact that it contains a mistake (that would be part of the updated arXiv version). Is this reasonable?
The question also extends to how to present myself to other researchers, when they ask me about prior publications in a less formal setting. My plan was to own up to it, and reply something along the lines of "For my master thesis I focused on improving [topic]. Unfortunately, I missed [known paper] and independently discovered the same results." (again, not focusing on the mistake I made).<issue_comment>username_1: Since you are still working on it and haven't abandoned it, it seems an obvious candidate for a "Work in Progress" section of your CV. Other current projects can be listed there also.
You don't really need to apologize, especially in the CV.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is also always the possibility of just not listing it at all. Your CV is meant to highlight the positives of your career. We don't list the rejected papers and proposals and other failures :-)
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/21
| 699
| 2,927
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a masters student and will get my degree this December having spent 1 summer, 2 spring, and 3 fall semesters to get it. I switched from non-thesis to thesis late in this process which is why I am making up for lost time in the lab and taking so long.
My question is related to my search for PhD funding. Many fellowships I come across (the [NSF GRFP](https://www.nsfgrfp.org/) for example) require no more than 1 year of graduate studies completed at the time of application, despite offering ~4 years of funding for PhD. This is very frustrating because it seems like I am unable to get PhD funding just because I am applying late in my masters, so I wonder:
**What is the purpose of this eligibility requirement which stops students like me (who's doctoral candidacy/experience would be effectively identical to an eligible student's) from applying?**
**Is there any way I can waive this requirement?**<issue_comment>username_1: I believe NSF is expecting top students that will get the few NSF scholarships available are going to go directly from a bachelor's to a PhD or MS+PhD program, rather than doing a masters in between. Presumably they get plenty of qualified applications from this applicant pool so there isn't any need to expand the pool. They're not looking to add-on funding for someone taking a longer time in graduate school or who has already had funding for their first few years.
Seems they do have some allowances for people returning to school, but I have no idea how likely it is that people applying in that situation actually get funding. I'd direct you to the FAQs on the page you linked, a couple are possibly relevant to you:
>
> Individuals who have completed more than one academic year in a degree-granting program, who have earned a previous master’s degree of any kind (including bachelor’s-master’s degree), or who have earned a professional degree (e.g., law, medicine), are eligible only if they have had a continuous interruption in graduate study of at least two consecutive years immediately prior to the application deadline, and are not enrolled in a degree-granting graduate program at the application deadline. This means that you cannot already be enrolled in graduate school at the time of the application deadline.
>
>
>
>
> Having a master’s degree makes you ineligible to apply to GRFP unless it was followed by a continuous interruption in graduate study of at least two consecutive years immediately prior to the application deadline; in this case, you would not be eligible because you are already enrolled again in graduate school.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You need to pick up the phone and call the NSF. And then they will probably tell you that in a grey area such as yours, you need to submit a completed application and they will determine your eligibility after they receive it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/21
| 974
| 3,770
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have [just learned](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9454/capitalisation-of-section-and-chapter-in-a-ph-d-thesis) to capitalize "Chapter" and "Section" when referring to specific chapters or sections.
Is this also the case for "Ref." as in
"As shown in Ref. [12], ..." or
"The authors of Refs. [1-3] conclude that, ..."?
I have seen this in an peer-reviewed journal and think that it looks good but somehow I can't find an objective reason to capitalize it. I don't want to trust my feelings since my mother tounge is German.
Context: I am writing my master's thesis right now.<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest not. But, you can pretty much do as you please and if there is no pushback then you are fine. An editor of a journal might have a preference, however, which you need to honor. Likewise an advisor. Relax.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: As I argued in [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/49493/20058), better not to use "Ref." in front of numerical citations with brackets unless a publisher requires you to do so to conform to their style (but as I say in that answer other users will likely argue the opposite). In any case, if you fail to conform to a publisher's style, the copy editor will likely fix it (not a certainty).
Also the capitalization typically depends on the publisher: some publishers write "section", "chapter" etc. with a lower-case initial, others with an upper-case one. Personally, I prefer lower case ones.
If for your thesis you don't have to follow a specific university guideline, or the advisor's advice (did you ask?), make your choice according to your preference, but be consistent: if you write "Sec.", use the same capitalization also for "Ref.". And if you write "Ref." abbreviated, don't write "Section" in full.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It depends on your intended audience. These things are not cast in stone. They vary from one place to another, even over time. A new editor at a journal may want his own way.
This is by no means the only formatting thing you should be thinking about. Lots of things will cause an editor (or equivalent) to grow distended veins in his forehead because you did it one way, while the next institution over will develop apoplexy because you did it the other way.
Check what the preferred style is where you hope to publish. For example, if you want to publish in journal X-Y-Z, go get a few copies of that journal and see how the articles in it do this. Then copy it. Or if it's a book or conference proceedings, check with the publisher or editor.
For a thesis, check with your department/faculty etc., for what their style guides are.
Some other things you may want to think about. There are lots more.
* Font, both face and size
* What to do about italics for things like i.e. or e.g.
* Space between lines
* Margins
* Table of contents
* Index
* Figure and table captions
* Footnotes and end notes
* Header, footer, and page number
* One column of text or two on a page (or more)
* Equation numbers and references to them
Some doc-prep systems will let you reformat such things very simply. The system [LaTeX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX) for example lets you use a specified style. You type in \cite{citedPubName} in your text. (Or something like that.) Then you specify the style file to include, and it prints out your document with the style indicated. If you, or your publisher, want to change some part of the style, you change what style file you use. Many journals will even supply you with the style file to use to be compliant with their requirements.
Plus, many journals will accept LaTeX directly, and format it as they need for publication.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/21
| 417
| 1,792
|
<issue_start>username_0: As my first time submitting a book proposal, it is required to indicate the amount of time expected to deliver the first draft of the book. I am not sure what to say because I have no idea about what the editors would consider enough time to write a book of 60k words. As I would really appreciate your insights, what do you think would be a reasonable amount of time to write 60k words book?<issue_comment>username_1: Guessing that it comes to 150 or so pages, but hard to be exact. I was once told (by someone in the "know") that a good writing plan is to "make one page of progress per day". That doesn't mean write one page and then quit for the day, but that your draft is one page longer at the end of each day. It also doesn't mean that the days will be short or easy. Some will be very long and hard with revisions.
But if you can manage that, then about five months.
I'm pretty sure that the intent was not scientific writing but that the creative bit was also done along with the writing, as opposed to just having a complete outline. But I don't think that my experience writing programing textbooks is too far different.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: As @JonCuster comments, you don't provide enough context for a reasonable answer. Is this just something you want to write but haven't started? Do you have fragments or drafts already down on (metaphorical) paper?
My experience writing mathematics textbooks is that each one takes me several years, starting with rough notes prepared for a course. I never wrote a formal book proposal since each book was essentially done before I had a publisher.
I wrote a draft of a 60K book with no technical content while on sabbatical one year. I never finished it (and probably never will).
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/22
| 759
| 3,190
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently got a job at a new institution, and recently one of my papers is accepted for publication. At this juncture you are allowed to change your institution on the paper. However, all of the work was done while at my previous institution where I was a postdoc, so I feel like the paper should display that institution's name.
What is the etiquette in this case? Does this depend on subject area?<issue_comment>username_1: If you no longer have an actual affiliation with the previous institution, you shouldn't claim that you have. One important use of affiliation is to make it easy for people to find you.
However, as you say, you owe them something for their support. An acknowledgement section, or even a footnote, is the place for this. "This work was done as a post-doc with the support of ...".
The two issues are separate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many journals allow you to include a "current address". If the journal that accepted your paper is one of these, then your affiliation should be your previous institution, where you worked on the paper, and your current address should be your new institution, where people can find you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: * If the bulk of the work was done at the old institution, use the old institution and simply add the new institution as a footnote. Thus:
Zero the Hero,
Tea Department,
The Oily Way,
[as footnote on title page]:
current address:
Inner Temple, The Milky Way
* If the bulk of the work was done at the new institution, then add an acknowledgment:
Part of this work was done while Zero the Hero was a Master Builder at the old institution.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Usually when moving between two institutions I got a "guest appointment" for a few months (normally just to keep e-mail working while I move institutions). You could try and get that at your old place, then list both institutions as your affiliation. I've found that universities will easily hand out guest appointments (as it doesn't cost them anything) especially to people who just finished working at the University.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You could just use a dual affiliation, while providing your current (new) institutional e-mail address if you are the corresponding author (or if all the authors should provide e-mail addresses).
If your old institution is paying for all related expenses (publication fees, or conference travel), you *may* add a footnote or similar saying "The majority of the work for this publication was done at University of Awesome").
If you are hoping your new institution will pick up the cost (as I know many will actually gladly do that in such cases), just use a plain dual affiliation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I wrote a paper while visiting xxx on sabbatical; the journal listed xxx as my affiliation.
This footnote followed:
>
> On sabbatical leave from Bryn Mawr College. Present and permanent
> address: Department of Mathematics, College II, University of
> Massachusetts at Boston, Boston, Massachusetts
>
>
>
with no email address since this was in the days before email.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/22
| 1,360
| 5,896
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am asking this question simply out of curiosity. I have reviewed around 4-5 papers of double-blind conferences. One pattern that I have found in common is that when authors use techniques/results from their previously published works, they do not properly cite that particular section/theorem since they are the same authors and they do not take this task very seriously.
Due to this, it becomes easy to figure out the identities of the authors.
Therefore, I want to know the other ways in which a reviewer can figure out the identity of the authors? Then, perhaps, we as authors can avoid making these mistakes when submitting our papers.<issue_comment>username_1: "This paper is based on the dissertation of Noche (2013)."
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Because of the rules of my PhD program, I have to state sentences akin to the following in the acknowledgements:
„This paper is part of username_2‘s dissertation project at the University of Academiaville.“
I dont think one could make it any easier for a reviewer to identify me as the author during a double-blind review.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: They do so by citing themselves unnecessarily. They do so by inappropriately ranking a reference to their own previous work ahead of more relevant references.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In some cases the subject matter makes it almost impossible to anonymise the work. For instance, a couple of years back I was asked to review a paper about a proposed improvement to the methods used for estimating the national accounts of a certain country.
That work is done by a specific national agency (the only agency that has access to all the relevant data) so it was obvious where the authors worked. Looking up recent publications connected to that agency would probably have allowed me to make a good guess as to who in particular was working on this topic.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of a good way to avoid this particular issue.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I work in a small experimental field where the groups around the world know each other very well . There's no double-blind peer-review, but things that make papers from my colleagues easily recognizable are the following (I think I'd recognize with high probability the authors of virtually any work in my field):
1. **The presence of certain specific pieces of equipment.** Certain pieces of equipment are owned by only 2-3 research groups around the world, and finding it in the description of an experiment clearly delimits the possibilities.
2. **The description of a long-term experiment** Certain experiments have been developed and described in several papers along ten-twenty years and are quite unique of certain groups. A paper on the topic clearly identifies the group.
3. **The manufacturing of certain specific devices.** There are devices for which only one or two groups possess the manufacturing capabilities.
4. **The style of symbols in schematic diagrams.** Each group typically develops along the years certain personalised symbols.
5. **The choice of symbols for certain quantities.** For instance the usage of *U* to denote a voltage is typical in Germany, Czech Republic and some other countries in Eastern Europe. If there are just a few groups in that area, this can be a revealing detail.
6. **The presence of certain idiosyncratic expressions.**
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: Probably the biggest and hardest to mask is writing style. A given author will structure their writing in certain ways, and use certain turns of phrase and grammatical quirks; someone who's read a number of that author's works can identify the author just from those cues.
As an example: my writing tends to make greater use of colons, semicolons, and qualifiers than average, and there are probably some other indications that I'm not aware of. Here on StackExchange, there are other users I can identify just from patterns of grammatical errors, or the use of large quote blocks, or how the introductory sentence of an answer is structured.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I actually just refereed an “anonymous” submission. After a simple copy-paste of the title in GoogleScholar, the search immediately produced the arXiv version with full author details.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: In my area of research double blind reviews are used to minimize **unconscious bias**. The earlier a reviewer knows the authors, the more she may be biased.
The goal of anonymity should thus only be to remove the obvious hints. Hide author names. Instead of "our previous paper [5]" write "the paper [5]", etc. not making major changes. If you think the authors could improve in this regard, you could mention it as 'minor comment' similar to how you would mention typos.
In my area anonymity is a fickle thing. In particular, for papers the following make it night impossible:
**1) Experts:** Commonly there are only few people who are likely to publish on a given topic and if I am asked to review a paper I am an expert and probably know them.
**2) Follow up work:** They build strongly on previous work and seem to know all the ins and outs. Moreover, structure, writing style, idiosyncracies of this particular work are identical. Guess what.
**3) Preprints:** There is a good chance that you google the title and find the paper on arXiv.
**4) Writing style:** The most devious one because it pervades even reviews, which should be anonymous. Do they write British or American English? Do they make certain grammatical mistakes typical for non-natives of a certain background? Do they overuse CERTAIN words?
If you combine these, there is really no chance to anonymize papers in many areas.
In fact, 1) and 4) suffice for an expert to make pretty good guesses about stuff that definitely should be anonymous, like reviews.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/22
| 1,887
| 8,008
|
<issue_start>username_0: The background is mathematics.
There are a few results I think are highly likely to be true, but proving them would take up some length, and they are not central to the paper I am writing.
They also are not important enough to become an independent paper, so it is unlikely someone will come and prove them later.
So what should I do? Is it appropriate to say "the result A should be true, and one can prove it using method B"?
Edit: those statements are generalizations to a proposition and are not needed for the proof of the main result.<issue_comment>username_1: If they are proved elsewhere, search the references and just cite them.
If these statements are new in the sense that the available literature does not contain their proofs, you can state them as conjectures and remember that the validity of your arguments that make use of these conjectures will be subservient to the truth value of these conjectures.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the result is proven to be true (or claimed to be true, ideally in more than one place) by some reliable source(s), you can cite that, especially if the proof would he straightforward. Of course, if the main result of your paper would have relied on this result, you would have to cite a source with a detailed proof or provide one yourself.
Otherwise you could consider the following options
1. You don't claim the result to be true (call it a conjecture or similar) and treat is as such.
2. (My preference) Provide a proof for the result, if it distracts from the remainder of the paper, put it in an appendix. You will do others a service, as they now have something to cite for the result. I am in theoretical CS, and have seen some cases of people doing this in similar situations.
This is assuming the statement really is too small to be in its own (short) paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't think "conjecture" is exactly the right word for what you have in mind, because that would imply *you don't know* how to prove it. If I understand the question, you're asking about small improvements that you have convinced yourself you could prove, but aren't important enough to include the full details in the paper.
In this case, I usually see people use language like "We expect Proposition X could be extended to the more general setting Y, at the cost of more careful technical arguments." Possibly followed by a few words about the specifics of the necessary arguments, if you can sum up the idea concisely. But there are a few caveats here:
* You need to be able to back this up with details if someone (such as a referee) asks.
* It's best to do this sparingly (perhaps once or twice per paper, at most) because at a certain point, if you're devoting so much verbiage to this extra unproven stuff, it should be important enough to actually prove some of it formally. To say it another way, there's a limit to how much anyone cares about mathematical claims you don't prove.
* It's important to word these statements carefully, to make it 100% clear that you aren't claiming to have proven the thing in question. ("We expect one can prove it using X method" is better than "one can prove it using X method.")
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You can say it in pretty much any format you want *provided that* you convey the meaning exactly as it is, which, if I understood you correctly is "It is quite possible that method B gives a slightly more general theorem A but the details have not been verified and this generalization is not needed to prove any results that are claimed to be proved in the paper".
I would use a wording that puts it as a challenge to the reader (having primarily a student reader in mind, but not exclusively). It would read something like the following.
*Remark: It would be interesting to see if our method can also yield a slightly more general statement, namely that /insert the formulation of A/. We believe that it may be quite likely but, since this more general statement would not give us any advantage as far as the proofs of the results in the present paper are concerned, we will not pursue this issue any further here and leave it to the interested reader instead.*
If somebody later would like to figure it out and publish something, he would be able to refer to that as "a question raised in [X]", which is, probably, just what you are looking for. Claiming, like Fermat, that you know a proof of something but it is too long to be included into the text would be rather impolite in a published paper, IMHO, since you are not annotating your personal copy of some book but give a detailed public presentation instead.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: I completely agree with the first paragraph of username_4's answer: the only crucial point is that you need to be clear that these assertions are *not* needed for the proofs of any of the main / formally stated results of the paper.
In order to figure out what to do with these "probably true but not fully checked" assertions, I suggest that you think about your purpose for including them. From your comments, it sounds like these are stronger forms of intermediate results, where "stronger" means stronger than you need to prove your main results. What to do here is an interesting problem that may (or may not; I am curious) be relatively specific to the academic field of mathematics. One aspect of this to address is:
>
> Why not include the stronger forms of these results?
>
>
>
In my opinion, all other things being equal it is a good thing rather than a bad thing if one's lemmas are stronger than strictly needed for the theorems they are used to prove. Virtually all academic work is done with the hope that it will be useful to other academics in the field, and this hope should include methods rather than just results. If the **idea of proof** of Lemma X also proves more general Lemma Y, it may well be more efficient in the long run to state Lemma Y from the outset, as otherwise there may be future mathematicians having to state and prove Lemmas Y.1, Y.2 and so forth. (Now these mathematicians may simply say "The proof of Lemma Y.n is similar to that of Lemma X and is omitted," but I don't really like this and I am not the only one.) This is especially true if *you* plan to make use of Lemma Y later on. For you it sounds like that is not the case.
However it is not always a good idea to follow the above procedure. If you have 20 pages of lemmas to prove a theorem when in fact 5 pages of lemmas would prove that theorem, then a different kind of disservice is being done to the reader (and one that referees are especially likely to object to). Thus I think that realistically you have to evaluate the risk/reward in every case. However I will make the following suggestion: **If at all possible, you should write out a precise statement and proof and then decide whether to include it.** I hope it doesn't sound paternalistic when I say that this is the kind of thing that sounds very onerous until you get into the habit of doing it, and then it is often not so bad. Another perspective on this is: you are never going to have a quicker and easier time writing down the proof of Lemma Y than when you have just written the proof of Lemma X.
This is a SE answer rather than an essay, so I will have to stop soon, but I think there are yet other interesting aspects of this question. Here is a hint of one: how valuable it is to "write down the most general version of your lemma" seems surprisingly field-dependent. I am a number theorist who is very algebraically minded (I am happy to make active use of commutative algebra), but often my work gets combined with other work in a more analytic style. It seems to me that in algebra there often is an "optimal result that the idea of proof of Lemma X actually proves" whereas in analysis this may really not be the case. There are other branches of mathematics too...
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/22
| 1,519
| 6,438
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am expected to finish my Ph.D. by the end of the year and I am seriously considering going for a second one. After finishing my master's in Biomedical Engineering, I became interested in Machine Learning and self-taught myself until I eventually landed a Ph.D. project in healthcare. At the risk of sounding cliché, the further I explored the field of ML, the more I felt my competencies were shaky at best. Now, this is not your typical "the more I know, the more I know I don't know" dilemma, since I have never had a formal background in the field.
Sadly, I now realize this Ph.D. was a terrible career choice, as was my choice of Biomedical Engineering for a minor/major.
Biomedical Engineering was a very fun but very challenging major. Fun in the sense that I had exposure to nearly all science fields. Challenging because I had first-contact courses at the level of other Engineering programs that had pre-requisite courses, forcing me to learn an insane amount of material in a semester, only to forget everything afterward since there was no follow-up. Thus, I feel like a **true** impostor, and sometimes I wonder if I should do another more focused major.
Regarding the Ph.D., I am in a peculiar position since I am pretty much the only one doing ML research in my group and the university does not offer graduate ML courses. Furthermore, since the funding comes from a European project with a specific goal, I have a very narrow set of tasks. I tried to learn everything I could myself, but since I never had a project where I could apply my new knowledge, I ended up needing to learn things over and over.
I would not say I was unsuccessful at all. I have published a technical paper in a top-tier ML conference and a clinical one in a top-tier medical journal (and have two of each kind just about ready to submit before I graduate). However, when I am looking for my next steps, I still feel like I barely know anything and that I will feel like an incompetent forever.
I have a good relationship with my supervisor, but he has not published anything in the field for a very long time, so I am pretty much on my own all of the time. I like the freedom I have, but not having someone with field experience to discuss my ideas made me pursue a dead-end path for more than a year. Also, I am now struggling to incorporate the feedback I got when my last technical paper was rejected at a top-tier conference.
Thus, I would like some advice regarding my next move. I am confident I could take a few more practical data science courses to mitigate my blind spots (NLP, I am looking at you) and get hired for a standard Data Scientist job, but ideally, I would like to continue working in a science field. I am therefore wondering whether I should do another, proper Ph.D. since this one was a fraud. I am desperate to *feel* like I am knowledgeable about something for once in my life and that I am progressing towards a goal I am excited about.
Sorry for the long text. I appreciate your advice.<issue_comment>username_1: Short answer: no
Longer answer: Finishing your PhD does not mean that you are done learning and improving. Everybody needs to continue doing that, and they do so without doing an additional PhD. Most (gradually) migrate to new topics, and learn about those through self-study or the occasional course/workshop. Most need to learn new skills; Many are shocked to find out when they got their first professorship that they are now more managers than researchers and need to learn a whole new set of skills. All universities I have been part of offered courses for early career researchers to facilitate that. The list continues. So it is normal that you are not "done" even though you finished your PhD. That unfinished state will hopefully continue for the rest of your life (your life would become pretty boring otherwise...).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You are dramatically overestimating how much people will look into the details of your PhD. Nobody will read your thesis and, after you land your first job, nobody will care what it was about.
If you decide to switch fields, you'd be surprised how quickly people stop caring what your major was. You will are a STEM PhD first and foremost, and people will only care about details that are directly relevant to your/their work.
Two years of work experience in your desired career will quickly wash away whatever you think was "bad" about your PhD.
For what it's worth, your experience is not uncommon. Despite the (also common) imposter syndrome, you've developed independent research skills and established academic credibility. You're finally wrapping up and want to move onto something new after graduation (and, you guessed it, that's common too).
Finish your PhD and find a job you like in the field you want. That will help you much more than a second PhD.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: While I agree with the other responses, let me give you the perspective of someone who was part of a group where second PhDs were common. I think many of this will not apply in all countries (including the US), though.
Reasons to do a second PhD:
1. **Funding.** Sometimes it is just about how someone can be hired. Also, in some countries PhD researchers are rather well paid so it can be an economic decision. (Also, in the country where this happened considers the PhD years as work experience, so years spent on the PhD are not "lost".)
2. **Changing fields.** If the fields are too far apart, it could be a requirement to get a (faculty) job, publications in the field are not enough.
3. **Wanting formal supervision in a specialised field.** As other answers and comments suggested this is not really necessary and a postdoc could work nicely to achieve this.
4. **Countries not recognising degree from certain institutions/countries.** Sometimes degrees are not automatically recognised and naturalisation is complicated. This is less of an issue nowadays but it still could happen.
5. **Moving abroad.**
6. **Practical reasons.** For example, wanting to work with a particular advisor who needs to hire a PhD student.
+1 **Fun.**
This a compilation of reasons I have been told or have observed. **Of course, this does not mean that doing a second PhD is advantageous from any other perspective.** You will not necessarily get a better job or be more successful.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/22
| 1,552
| 6,441
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are many posts here with situation specific asks for advice on *should* one obtain a PhD, try a different PhD program, etc.
As someone who recently finished a PhD, I have been asked by students, friends, younger folks, this very question:
>
> "Should I get a PhD? What do you think?"
>
>
>
**What are the key questions/points that guide you through this conversation and process of giving advice?**
*I acknowledge advice and guidance might vary between countries and programs, and I have some beginning thoughts to answer this question.*
* Help them determine their goals
* Would a PhD help them achieve their goals?
* Don't assume your experience will be their experience
What else can help guide this conversation?<issue_comment>username_1: One thing you haven't noted is that **a PhD is mainly, if not all about, research**. The way PhD admissions has focused more on research experience, as opposed to grades, I would say get multiple experiences beforehand that will help one determine if a PhD is right for them. This includes (mainly elaborating on OP's first two bullet points):
* **Getting as much research experience** (preferably related to what you may want to focus on, but also even if not necessarily related) to help one figure out what they specifically want to focus on if they were to do a PhD or help them figure out if research is for them. This includes opportunities at their undergraduate/MS institution, or, if there aren't as many opportunities in the field of interest, programs like NSF REU's at other schools to help people get such research opportunities/experience.
* Maybe **working** in industry or some non-academic job that would help them see what life is like as part of a corporate job, etc. and if they want this long-term as opposed to an academic or any MS/PhD-related career. During my REU, we had these weekly chat sessions with PhD students, a few of them who had worked before starting their PhD; in addition to one of the professors organizing the REU who had done the same, most, if not all, of them said it helped confirm that PhD/academics is what they wanted to do.
Another bullet point I'd like to add, is can you be frugal with money during the 5-8 years you are getting your PhD? Assuming you take a fully-funded offer (like you should, otherwise treat it as a soft reject) and get a living stipend, you should be aware that that stipend is **much much less** than if you took even a very entry-level IT job. Learning how to be frugal (including saving up money beforehand) will definitely help a lot financially for one before and during the PhD process.
(responding to a comment below: if all you care about is earning a six-figure salary fast, then PhD is not what you want because at the least you are delaying this for a full five years)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Maybe this is too personal for an answer, but I think that if a person asks that question, then the obvious answer is no. If you aren't *absolutely driven* to do it, then it probably isn't what you really want. If you are just "looking for a nice career" then you aren't driven enough.
But if you are *absolutely driven* by the need to understand "stuff" at a deep level, then maybe it is for you. This implies that you are willing to sacrifice other things (hopefully not other people, though) in the need to achieve that understanding - even of things not yet known. The particular "stuff" isn't nearly as important as the burning *need* to dig into it.
Another deep driver might be a massive unrequited desire to teach at some level above secondary. Even undergraduate faculty basically require a doctorate, even when serious research is but a small part of the requirements.
Academics and other researchers can achieve a comfortable life style. But the rewards of a doctorate are mostly internal. If the drivers in your life aren't like that, then it will be hard to make it work.
So, for the question itself, ask them what their drivers are. What do they want to achieve? What would make them happy in ten years about both the future and the previous ten years?
If they ask you "Should I..." then maybe not. But if they ask "How can I...", then you have something to work with.
I was driven. I stumbled once, which brought the future into doubt. The intense desire was enough to push me through, even though my family might have wished me to change direction. It wasn't an option. Luckily I found some allies and supporters who helped me get going again.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the dialog about their career and life goals are spot on, like you talk about in your questions.
I always start with *Why do you want a PhD?*
Specifically, I ask people *what are your career and life goals?*
Depending upon their goals I try to cover the following points:
* **Academic job market:** Personally, I try to either steer people away from academic jobs or at least tell them they are statistically unlikely to land an academic job and should have a fall back plan.
* **Do they need a PhD for their job?** For some fields, a master's degree might get them their dream job and a PhD overqualify them, especially for applied fields.
* **Where do you want to work?** Do they want a research job in either industry or government? Often these jobs are easier to get than academic jobs.
* **Money:** Science fields usually pay for a PhD and are money neutral. Although a loss of productive years, at least you are not getting more student debt to obtain a degree. Also, for many fields a MS degree is the optimal choice for maximizing one's lifetime income.
* **Location:** Where do you want to live?
* **Sub-field:** You can study the same topic in different fields. For example, you might look at soil microbiomes in a soil science department, an agronomy department, a biology department, a theoretical ecology department, or a forestry department. You might even get the same papers from your dissertation, but have very different career options and experiences depending upon your advisor and field.
* **Advisor:** Most undergrads I talk with do not realize the importance of choosing a good advisor.
* **Other nuances of my subfield:** For example, do you need a MS to get into a PhD program? What are funding options for a PhD? How long does grad school typically take? What are qual and/or comp exams like?
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/22
| 1,486
| 6,196
|
<issue_start>username_0: Three months earlier, I published a preprint version of my paper and it appeared immediately on my Google Scholar account.
Recently, I published my paper in a journal. However, this citation/version has not been on Google Scholar. Thus, only the old preprint version is available on my profile.
Can I manually add an article with the journal citation and then merge it with the preprint version? If my paper get any citations, would these citations appear on my Google Scholar profile?<issue_comment>username_1: One thing you haven't noted is that **a PhD is mainly, if not all about, research**. The way PhD admissions has focused more on research experience, as opposed to grades, I would say get multiple experiences beforehand that will help one determine if a PhD is right for them. This includes (mainly elaborating on OP's first two bullet points):
* **Getting as much research experience** (preferably related to what you may want to focus on, but also even if not necessarily related) to help one figure out what they specifically want to focus on if they were to do a PhD or help them figure out if research is for them. This includes opportunities at their undergraduate/MS institution, or, if there aren't as many opportunities in the field of interest, programs like NSF REU's at other schools to help people get such research opportunities/experience.
* Maybe **working** in industry or some non-academic job that would help them see what life is like as part of a corporate job, etc. and if they want this long-term as opposed to an academic or any MS/PhD-related career. During my REU, we had these weekly chat sessions with PhD students, a few of them who had worked before starting their PhD; in addition to one of the professors organizing the REU who had done the same, most, if not all, of them said it helped confirm that PhD/academics is what they wanted to do.
Another bullet point I'd like to add, is can you be frugal with money during the 5-8 years you are getting your PhD? Assuming you take a fully-funded offer (like you should, otherwise treat it as a soft reject) and get a living stipend, you should be aware that that stipend is **much much less** than if you took even a very entry-level IT job. Learning how to be frugal (including saving up money beforehand) will definitely help a lot financially for one before and during the PhD process.
(responding to a comment below: if all you care about is earning a six-figure salary fast, then PhD is not what you want because at the least you are delaying this for a full five years)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Maybe this is too personal for an answer, but I think that if a person asks that question, then the obvious answer is no. If you aren't *absolutely driven* to do it, then it probably isn't what you really want. If you are just "looking for a nice career" then you aren't driven enough.
But if you are *absolutely driven* by the need to understand "stuff" at a deep level, then maybe it is for you. This implies that you are willing to sacrifice other things (hopefully not other people, though) in the need to achieve that understanding - even of things not yet known. The particular "stuff" isn't nearly as important as the burning *need* to dig into it.
Another deep driver might be a massive unrequited desire to teach at some level above secondary. Even undergraduate faculty basically require a doctorate, even when serious research is but a small part of the requirements.
Academics and other researchers can achieve a comfortable life style. But the rewards of a doctorate are mostly internal. If the drivers in your life aren't like that, then it will be hard to make it work.
So, for the question itself, ask them what their drivers are. What do they want to achieve? What would make them happy in ten years about both the future and the previous ten years?
If they ask you "Should I..." then maybe not. But if they ask "How can I...", then you have something to work with.
I was driven. I stumbled once, which brought the future into doubt. The intense desire was enough to push me through, even though my family might have wished me to change direction. It wasn't an option. Luckily I found some allies and supporters who helped me get going again.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the dialog about their career and life goals are spot on, like you talk about in your questions.
I always start with *Why do you want a PhD?*
Specifically, I ask people *what are your career and life goals?*
Depending upon their goals I try to cover the following points:
* **Academic job market:** Personally, I try to either steer people away from academic jobs or at least tell them they are statistically unlikely to land an academic job and should have a fall back plan.
* **Do they need a PhD for their job?** For some fields, a master's degree might get them their dream job and a PhD overqualify them, especially for applied fields.
* **Where do you want to work?** Do they want a research job in either industry or government? Often these jobs are easier to get than academic jobs.
* **Money:** Science fields usually pay for a PhD and are money neutral. Although a loss of productive years, at least you are not getting more student debt to obtain a degree. Also, for many fields a MS degree is the optimal choice for maximizing one's lifetime income.
* **Location:** Where do you want to live?
* **Sub-field:** You can study the same topic in different fields. For example, you might look at soil microbiomes in a soil science department, an agronomy department, a biology department, a theoretical ecology department, or a forestry department. You might even get the same papers from your dissertation, but have very different career options and experiences depending upon your advisor and field.
* **Advisor:** Most undergrads I talk with do not realize the importance of choosing a good advisor.
* **Other nuances of my subfield:** For example, do you need a MS to get into a PhD program? What are funding options for a PhD? How long does grad school typically take? What are qual and/or comp exams like?
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/22
| 557
| 2,311
|
<issue_start>username_0: This post does not include me, but recently, it came to the attention of many on a social media platform that a recently graduated doctor had made a claim that "the dean of faculty of medicine" is "forcing" people into putting the dean's son's name on their studies. The dean's son, who is under 30, has more than 30 publications with one research being cited by more than 200 on Google Scholar. This is in addition to completing two literary books and attaining 2 master degrees.
Is it possible for such a figure of achievements to exist for someone who is under 30? And what should one do in case a professor/dean/advisor attempts to exert influence/pressure to force a student to mention a relative's name in their publication?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it's possible for someone under 30 to have their name legitimately on 30 publications. Authorship contributions can be relatively minor, and in fields where people work on lots of different projects it could be quite possible. By age 30 one could easily have 10+ years of research experience at different levels of study. One first-authored paper per year and two side projects would be a good level of output in many fields, but not abnormal.
Yes, it's possible for any one of those publications to be cited 200 times in some fields. Publications in certain journals are widely read and may be widely cited; if they are on a hot topic they may be widely read and cited regardless of journal. Search Google Scholar for "coronavirus" and you'll find many. It doesn't necessarily take a lot of extra *effort* to be cited so much, just some good timing and luck in the right area. Papers by more famous/respected researchers are likely to be read by more people in their field and therefore more highly cited, but their coauthors will all still be on those papers, too.
Of course it's also possible to obtain those numbers fraudulently. The numbers themselves won't tell you anything. If someone is asked to add a gift authorship they should certainly decline it.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I had more than 30 math and math ed. papers and books published by the time I was 30. I expect that people in more applied fields usually have more publications. So 30 is not something unusual.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/22
| 2,135
| 9,004
|
<issue_start>username_0: Very brief of the situations that happened from Jan 2021 : Living in a 3rd world country. I completed my masters in math in Jun 2020. Then I wanted to study some additional topics before applying in Europe. So, took 1 year break and went home. Studied fine till Jan 2021, then constant verbal abuse started by my father and occasionally by my mother (they earlier also used to verbally abuse me but I didn't do my bachelors and masters in my native city, so less impact was on me).
Admitted to mental hospital for 10 days in Feb and misdiagnosed with schizophrenia (I have depression). Verbal and emotional abuse continues and again admitted to different hospital in March for 11 days, diagnosed with depression. Verbal abuse again continues after some days of discharge. So, I move out taking a part time job to sustain myself in different city on 1 July and learning some new math topics alongside. Thinking about suicide since March 2021 but postponed to try 1 more year if I am not able to get a phd position as learning and doing math is the only thing I like.
(Reason of verbal abuse: parents wanted me to do full time job and not math research so that I can settle early and also wanted me to take a career like medical doctor or engineer which is more earning and takes less time to settle time). I could only study 1 month of math in these 6 months.
>
> How much should I mention the situation due to my 6 months of my life are being wasted in my CV when applying to PHD position in Mathematics? Will the admission by me that I have suffered from depression affect my selection for Phd i.e. how it would be taken by selection committee?
>
>
>
I don't think I should lie as I would be really weird to make up what I was not doing as what I was doing. I really need advice.
Also, I think if I don't mention it in CV then certainly I will be asked in interview about the gap in studies (and then I will have to explain in very few lines which will obviously change the course of interview to an entirely different thing if it is not known to the prof. beforehand).
Certainly, I am not mentioning it for any sympathy but I think I should write about it very briefly as I write CV in a bit timeline form; if I just left a gap or don't mention it then certainly it would be thought that I have been less productive because of the lower number of things I studied. (But there is a very valid reason of being less productive).
>
> Edit : I feel that I should at least mention it because it is due to abuse by my parents that I have been so depressed and I wasted precious time and I would have certainly been better if my parents were able to understand what I want to do with my life.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: If the gap is short enough that it is unlikely to be noticed, then ignore it for the CV. For a longer break give as few details as possible. Certainly nothing like what you write here. "Medical issues" or "Personal/family needs" is all you need to say.
Reserve the CV for those things that show your productivity and skills, not for those that explain problems.
If you are asked about it in an interview, I also suggest that you give as little information as you can.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Based on the description, it sounds like everything that happened, occurred during this period:
>
> Then I wanted to study some additional topics before applying in Europe. So, took 1 year break and went home.
>
>
>
That's all you need to say. It's true. You aren't under any obligation to go into details about what happened during that year in your personal life.
I think you are overestimating how suspicious people will be about this one year. On the other hand, disclosing personal information like what you say in your description, unprompted, will almost certainly make admissions committees nervous (at best it is an extra piece of information they have that doesn't contribute positively to your case). Focus on your conveying your background and studies. These things happen, be easy on yourself, and remember we can move on from these personal events that seem very important to us in the moment -- don't tie yourself to it and define yourself by it.
**Edit** Dawn also made an excellent point in the comments that people are aware the previous year has been difficult for everyone because of the pandemic. In my mind, this goes even further in the direction that people are more likely not to weigh one "gap year" very strongly, and you should not go out of your way to answer a question that wasn't asked by providing intimate details about your personal situation.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: When I am making a decision on a PhD application (for my department, not as prospective supervisor, in the UK) the question I need to answer is:
***Will this person, if admitted, in all likelihood do well in our programme and earn their PhD (through a good dissertation)?***
The question is definitely not *Does this person deserve a shot at earning their PhD?* Hence, what an applicant has done is the past is relevant only for its predictive value for what they would accomplish in the future. If I believe a PhD candidate needs skill X but is lacking it, it does not matter whether it is the fault of the candidate that they haven't learned X or not.
The decision is meant to be somewhat objective, made in a rational mode of reasoning. Application material overtly meant to elicidate an emotional response is thus going me me somewhat uncomfortable, as I will need to work to separate this from the decision process.
While I recommend disclosing mental health issues that require accommodation to a prospective supervisor early on, only in very limited circumstances would it seem to be in the applicant's best interest to bring this up in admissions. This situation is when an applicant has temporarily underperformed significantly in the past due a mental health issue that is under control now (and will stay that way); and where the applicant now has the relevant knowledge and skills they should have.
**In the concrete situation described in the OP**: The mental health episode happened outside of formal studies. There are no bad grades to explain. The impact on the profile of the applicant is that they have learned somewhat less of additional math than they would have otherwise, but that is what it is. **There is absolutely nothing to gain for OP by bringing up mental health in their application.** If in an interview the question of what exactly OP learned during this year comes up, it makes sense to express that it was less than anticipated due to adverse circumstances. But even here I would not bring up mental health, but rather state that OP is much more productive when at a university.
As pointed out by Dawn and username_2, the last year was a bad one for lots of us. Most academics will not question a simple *2020/21 was NOT a productive time in my professional life* claim, because they either share that sentiment or have heard it from lots of colleagues they respect.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you believe it affected your grades or would otherwise affect your application package in a significant way, you can go ahead and **briefly** mention it. **If you go overboard on mentioning it and focus on your depression too much though, it won't necessarily be a good thing and could even backfire.**
If it's something like you took a gap year after graduating undergrad to mentally recuperate, maybe even take a job during that time, I wouldn't even bother mentioning it (unless you were productive during that time, then mention *what you did* to be productive and not your mental health), as others have said. Unless the gap caused by this would be **that** significant, and even then I'd maybe spend *a single sentence or two* talking about that and then move on. (I wouldn't even say a gap from March 2020 because of the initial outbreak of COVID to be that significant given how many people the early stages of the pandemic did affect). In your case, 6 months isn't that big of a gap (in industry, at least, it isn't uncommon to have a 6 month gap between jobs, or between graduating and starting your first job); I personally can't justify, mentioning, let alone going overboard over this small of a gap.
On the note of something mental that would require accommodations, that stuff isn't meant for the grad school application package. If and once you are admitted to a few places, THEN you can bring it up with the disability department at your prospective universities and try and work something out.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: To be honest, most people don't care about personal stuff. I will suggest writing doing freelancing, getting training for any subject etc. People will show sympathy once, but overall, they will criticise it. Yes, exceptions are there.
My opinion sounds negative, but this is reality.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/22
| 785
| 3,365
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am wondering if anyone knows, thinks or has measured whether putting a paper on arXiv before submitting to a journal has any impact on the paper reviewing process and on it being accepted or rejected?
I do know why to put it on arXiv. There are plenty of reasons for that and it has been discussed exhaustively here and elsewhere in academia. **This question is not about that**.
I know that journals have different policies about this. I read them, I checked them, I am fine there as well. **This question is not about that either**.
My question is whether, in practice, there is a known impact or can anyone speculate if publishing to arXiv has a positive or negative effect.
For instance, the editor/reviewers can see the paper in the arXiv and can have a different position about it; some people might have experiences relating to that from the point of view of reviewer/editor/submitter.
It would also be very interesting to see statistics showing whether the reviewing process for random sets of manuscript submissions with and without preprint versions differ, but I would guess those do not exist yet.<issue_comment>username_1: My speculation is that posting on arXiv has little or no impact on odds of acceptance.
When I review a paper, I'm looking for relevance, impact, and correctness. I understand editors are looking for the same. Whether a paper is already on arXiv or not simply doesn't affect any of that stuff.
I suppose if a preprint attracted a good number of citations, this could be a positive signal about the paper's potential impact. But in practice I wouldn't seek out this information as a reviewer, so I likely wouldn't know about it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no plausible mechanism by which a manuscript being posted on arXiv could affect that manuscript’s chance of getting accepted by a journal.
If you suspect otherwise, then you simply don’t understand how experienced researchers think about arXiv, and/or how much thought and care editors and reviewers put into doing their jobs in a professional manner.
This applies to disciplines where uploading preprints to arXiv is the norm. In other areas where public preprints are taboo or frowned upon, the answer could be different,
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I am an editor for two journals that allow arxiv preprints, and at those journals whether a manuscript is posted on arxiv has no influence on whether it is accepted.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> It would also be very interesting to see statistics showing whether the >reviewing process for random sets of manuscript submissions with and without preprint versions differ, but I would guess those do not exist yet.
>
>
>
I think that "statstics" may be misleading. There is no point oto average over different journals, and the "statistics" for each journal will be different. Also papers are not put on arxiv not by a "random" decision but based on specific reasoning. If on average more papers that are on arxiv get published, does it mean the journal favours prior arxiv publication, or that there was some reason for nor putting paper on arxiv and this has lead to ultimate rejection?
That said I do not know a single case where there is a an "unofficial" policy of not allowing arxiv preprints. If it exists, it is official.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/22
| 813
| 3,516
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it true that in *most* peer-reviewed journals the editorial office can decide to publish a paper without at least one reviewer approving some version to be published as is? I am asking whether they technically have the right to do so in some kind of exceptional situation. Say, for instance, the reviewer has approved the paper for publication modulo some minor corrections, but after these corrections have been made they stop responding to communication.
Or do most journals have strict protocols forbidding publication without a final approval from at least one reviewer? In case "most peer-reviewed journals" is too broad, my field is pure mathematics.<issue_comment>username_1: [Yes](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32397/why-do-editors-sometimes-accept-a-paper-even-if-a-reviewer-recommends-rejection)
The ultimate arbiter of what gets published in journals is the editor-in-chief, not any reviewer.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In all the mathematics journals I'm acquainted with, the editors' decisions on publication are final, and the referees' opinions are just advisory.
So, yes, if an editor wanted to publish a paper despite some negative remarks from referees, that'd be entirely within protocols. Still, I'd think that generally they'd have scant motivation to do so.
I'd think that disagreement would generally be one-sided, namely, that editors might decide to publish something despite negative remarks from a referee, while rarely deciding to *not* publish something despite high praise from referee(s).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Ultimately, the answer is that it is up to the journal editors what they choose to publish. The final decisions about acceptance or rejection are always in the hands of the editorial staff. However, some journals (such as the *Physical Review* journals) do indeed have a standing policy that they will not publish any research papers without at least one positive referee report—although the policies may also allow for the journal editors to referee papers themselves, should they choose or should the need arise.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I had a paper published in a decent niche journal without review at all (there. It got reviews and final verdict of "good content but too niche, reject" at another journal by another publisher). Editor read the paper and decided to publish it straight away, skipping the usual review process. While field is physics and this was the only time it happened to me (or any of coworkers), it can happen.
While it is evidently possible although unusual to accept even without review, I doubt any journal will decide to publish after receiving 2-3 negative reviews without any positive one. The only somewhat plausible scenario I can imagine is similar to mine - that reviewers feel content is good but not a good fit for the journal. Then editor overrules that particular objection (unlike in my case) and publishes it despite having all reviewers suggesting reject. It would be fairly exceptional, but I believe it could happen.
On the other hand, if the problem is in content, ignoring one critical reviewer when two feel the paper is fine is already slightly unusual though not too out of ordinary. Ignoring all of them raises all sorts of red flags. Reviewers will be pissed for wasting their time and the journal will look predatory: "we publish everything no matter the quality, we don't actually do reviews at all".
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/22
| 1,456
| 6,115
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've just had a paper rejected by a certain math journal -- nothing new so far, but the journal made a (rather unusual?) offer in the rejection email, and I'm not sure what to make of it.
They said that, if I want to, they can disclose the identity of the referee to the next journal I submit to. To do that, I would need to tell the managing editor of the next journal to contact the journal that has rejected my paper.
Here's more background info:
* The reason (they think) I might want that is that the referee report is actually positive, so (they think) it might help me.
* Yes, the paper was rejected despite the fact that the report was clearly positive. The journal acknowledged the fact that it's positive, but said they have to choose from the papers with positive reviews. (In fact, I even submitted a major revision a few months ago, and the referee was happy with the changes. The whole process took almost a whole year and there wasn't a single negative or even lukewarm report. I'm naturally quite sour now.)
* The journal is a well-known strong-but-not-top generalist journal. (Think something like Crelle / Compositio / Math. Annalen -- it may or may not be one of these, but that's the level.)
* For my next submission, I'm aiming at the same level and type of journal. I'm worried though that I might run out of journals of this sort, so I have to play my cards carefully (this is 'only' the second rejection, but all these journals seem to have issues).
* The paper is in my opinion strong and reasonably significant (and the referee seems to agree), but not in a 'hot' subarea. Also, I'm completely unknown, and the more senior people working in this subarea are good, but not superstars either.
* I'm genuinely unsure which of the editors handled my paper.
In any case, here are the questions.
1. Is this common? Did it happen to you/someone you know? What do you think of it?
2. What should I do?
If I accept the offer, the downside is obviously that strong journals aren't eager to publish papers that have been rejected by similar journals, and it doesn't help me to put a "I was rejected" label on my paper's forehead. The upside is that the same referee seems fairly likely to recommend the paper for publication if they're chosen.
3. Will the managing editor even bother (to contact the previous journal, if I ask them to)?<issue_comment>username_1: I can't advise you what to do, but only point out a few things that might help you make a decision.
Keep in mind that a paper can be rejected for a variety of reasons not related to the quality of the paper, though a breakthrough paper wouldn't get such treatment.
First, a paper can be rejected if it is out of scope for the journal. It is less likely in a generalist journal than a specialized one, of course. Second, the editor might not have a "slot" for the paper. This can happen if the queue is full (especially for a print journal) and the editor has the next year or two already laid out and committed. Third, a paper might be rejected because it is too similar (in field-specialty, probably) to papers already in the queue and the editor is looking for balance so as to make each issue appeal to a wider audience.
If your review/reviewer is sent to another journal, the editor there is likely to understand all of these things, and for a positive review (that has been through a few cycles) decide that it was rejected for one of the "extraneous" reasons, not the quality.
The upside of letting this happen is that your time to publication would likely be reduced if the review time is reduced. You already pointed out the downside.
Perhaps there is something in the letter you got from the editor that lets you grok the true reason. I would guess that if the coin flip is unbalanced a bit it would be in favor of doing this. But you may have more information.
---
I can't predict what the managing editor of the new journal would do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This has happened to me once or twice, and is becoming more moderately common in math. My understanding is the main reasons to do this are to:
1. Get a quick turnaround because the reviewer shouldn't take long to re-review it.
2. Save overall refereeing efforts.
Taking the journal up on this offer may result in a quick acceptance, or a quick rejection. In my opinion this is the main upside you are missing.
However that the new journal you submit to may or may not take you up on this offer, and refereeing may take the usual amount of time, or they may want a second referee anyway. And if it happens to be the same editor, they might send the paper to the same referee whether or not you mention this (or even a different editor may do this by chance).
As for the downside you mention, that is a potential drawback if it is a different editor, but also sometimes journals have long backlogs and accept very few papers, so it could be chalked up to this.
I think this is a personal choice with no right or wrong answer, but if getting a quick decision is important for you, then I would say try disclosing this information when you submit, at least once.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: This is reasonably common. I've had this happen to me as an author and as a reviewer - note that the identity of the reviewer should not shared with anyone without the consent of the reviewer.
You should take up this offer if you are resubmitting to a journal clearly lower on the prestige scale. It's not clear what you should do for a journal roughly equal on the prestige scale.
I might add that all the generalist journals have various biases in favor of or against various areas. You should definitely take this into account when considering where to submit. You should also be trying to submit to journals where some member of the editorial board is known to like your subarea. If, as you say, some of the senior people who do work in the subarea of the paper are good, then at least one of them should be an associate editor for some reasonably high level generalist journal.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/22
| 482
| 2,203
|
<issue_start>username_0: It seems like the review process rigor does not vary much at reputable journals. Is a low acceptance rate therefore due to lots of desk rejects?<issue_comment>username_1: My anecdotal impression is that while both phases are important and certainly the top journals have higher rates of desk rejections before review, they also tend to have less editorial leeway for revisions after peer review.
The rigor of reviews is the same, which makes sense: ultimately, the actual people doing the reviews are coming from the same pool of "other scientists in the field". They aren't reviewing more or less sloppily according to the journal's stature or "impact factor": they're offering their professional opinions about the work in front of them.
However, the higher end journals are looking for *glowing* peer reviews in the first round; if the reviews aren't glowing (both in terms of scientific rigor and perceived "impact"), they're likely to either reject the paper outright, or more recently as journals have adopted a tiered system, recommend continuing the peer review process at a lower-tier journal by that publisher (for example, Scientific Reports for Nature).
I publish in neuroscience and medical journals; experiences may vary in other fields.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is similar to job applications. While processes are similar everywhere, getting a job obviously is not. More people will be 'desk rejected' for sure, but even those candidates getting the interview will have a harder time.
Scientists writing the review are conscious about the venue. If asked to review for a top journal, established scientists know the quality of the result required and communicate appropriately whether such quality is found in the submission.
The more reputable the journal the more competitive everything becomes and competition introduces randomness and focus on superficial things. Editors of weaker journals need to decide, which work to accept, while editors of strong journals, once the subpar submissions are gone, need to decide what to reject.
So reputable reviews receive more critical reviews and tolerate less criticism in such reviews.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/23
| 773
| 3,238
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first year PhD student in mathematics. One day I was having some conversation with my supervisor and we got to a point where he casually mentioned about his other students and said that one of his student is quite "weak" and one of his other student is "strong". Since then I've been wondering what does he think about me.
An obvious way is to just ask him directly, but the problem is that this country is Canada and here people are very polite (most of them). So, if I ask him directly, I think he will just say nice things about me and so, it wouldn't really answer my question. I would really like to have an honest answer, even if it's bitter, because then I would know what skills to work on and try to improve.
Can you guys suggest some better way to get honest feedback/constructive criticism from my supervisor?
Another vague question I have is:
How can I know what he thinks about me? Does he think I'm a weak, mediocre or good student?
Little background: I have been working with my current supervisor since my Masters and I decided to have him as my supervisor for my PhD as well. We meet weekly to discuss about my progress/ideas and other administrative stuff (if there's any).<issue_comment>username_1: Since your supervisor talks to you this way, he most probably thinks that you are doing OK. Note that you are a first year PhD, so you are not expected to do something outstanding. The fact that you already have a supervisor is good enough.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I suggest that you ask them directly. Being polite doesn't imply not being honest. It certainly shouldn't imply misleading you to believe you are doing well when you aren't.
But the way you ask can influence the reply. Asking whether there are things they would suggest to help you improve is quite different from asking "How am I doing?". There might be other, more effective, formulations, of course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: First, ask yourself why you want to know. Comparing oneself to others (or to an external scale of weak or strong) can be incredibly demotivating, and as a rule you should only do it if you need the information for some useful purpose. For example, if you're considering dropping out and changing careers, it may make sense to solicit blunt feedback about how you measure up to the average student. But if it's just morbid curiosity, I'd encourage you to try not to think about it. Put your head down and channel that anxiety into doing good work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In pedagogy it was found (sorry I can't find the reference to the study) that when a feedback in the form of a mark or a comment like "Good" etc does not lead to improvements. Rather, what would be a better line, and one that would be ok with cultural sensitivites, would be to ask what should I be working on? What do you think has went well so far? Of course, you could do a lot worse to ask yourself this question too. Try to be SMART about how well you have done (specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and time limited) e.g. to say I produced a 20 page literature review after 6 months would be better than I wrote about some papers I read.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/23
| 663
| 2,788
|
<issue_start>username_0: I worked on a research project about a year ago while working as a full-time RA/technician and some colleagues before leaving after my contract ended. We are currently finishing a manuscript for publication, in which I am a junior co-author.
I currently am not in a research position but am an adjunct instructor for a single online class. For this manuscript, what is the appropriate affiliation: the institution where I was last employed and the work involved with the paper, where I am an adjunct instructor, or an "independent scholar"?
(Other co-authors who have left the institution for different research positions list their new institutions. Everyone involved is in the United States, and the research was in psychology/behavioral science.)<issue_comment>username_1: Since your supervisor talks to you this way, he most probably thinks that you are doing OK. Note that you are a first year PhD, so you are not expected to do something outstanding. The fact that you already have a supervisor is good enough.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I suggest that you ask them directly. Being polite doesn't imply not being honest. It certainly shouldn't imply misleading you to believe you are doing well when you aren't.
But the way you ask can influence the reply. Asking whether there are things they would suggest to help you improve is quite different from asking "How am I doing?". There might be other, more effective, formulations, of course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: First, ask yourself why you want to know. Comparing oneself to others (or to an external scale of weak or strong) can be incredibly demotivating, and as a rule you should only do it if you need the information for some useful purpose. For example, if you're considering dropping out and changing careers, it may make sense to solicit blunt feedback about how you measure up to the average student. But if it's just morbid curiosity, I'd encourage you to try not to think about it. Put your head down and channel that anxiety into doing good work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In pedagogy it was found (sorry I can't find the reference to the study) that when a feedback in the form of a mark or a comment like "Good" etc does not lead to improvements. Rather, what would be a better line, and one that would be ok with cultural sensitivites, would be to ask what should I be working on? What do you think has went well so far? Of course, you could do a lot worse to ask yourself this question too. Try to be SMART about how well you have done (specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and time limited) e.g. to say I produced a 20 page literature review after 6 months would be better than I wrote about some papers I read.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/23
| 1,135
| 5,014
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently an undergrad junior majoring in physics and mathematics and will likely apply for a high energy experiment or observational cosmology PhD programme after graduation. I have heard quite a few times that many people who studied physics and mathematics in undergrad wished they had studied more computer science; especially if their graduate research is related to high energy experiment. Since CS skills are needed everywhere, even if I were to quit academia, I am trying to take some CS courses before I graduate.
**Question: How much data analysis and what sort of analysis do you do in high energy experimental/observational cosmology programmes?**
As of right now I am planning on taking a few courses on basic programming (data structures etc.),
a course on statistical analysis for data science, and a course on machine learning.<issue_comment>username_1: I'll answer from the cosmology perspective, though probably a lot of this applies to hep-ex as well.
You should aim to have a good working knowledge of Python as that is the *lingua franca* in cosmology. Additionally, it's useful to be familiar with either Fortran or C, as some of the larger numerical cosmology codes such as CAMB and CLASS are written in those.
For observational cosmology specifically, you should learn how to handle large datasets and image files, especially FITS files. If you're going to be using existing databases of images, spectra etc, then learning SQL will also be useful.
Finally, the vast majority of statistical analysis in cosmology follows a Bayesian rather than frequentist framework, so understanding the basic concepts of that, as well as methods such as MCMC parameter inference will be useful.
Machine learning methods are becoming increasingly popular, though there is little true expertise in the field. Any knowledge and experience you have of using machine learning, especially classification and regression methods, will be a bonus.
If I were you, I would take a look at some recent papers in your specific field of interest to get an idea of the specific data analysis and computing methods used, as it will differ quite a lot from project to project even within cosmology. You can find relevant papers on the astro-ph.co section of arXiv.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It will depend strongly on the specific tasks you are involved in. In most labs there will be the local guru who can get you started if you are nice to him. And on most large projects there will be several such gurus.
HEP experimental is going to, naturally, have a big hardware component. If you can repair, diagnose, build, or install some kind of electronic or computer hardware, then you may get to go to the lab. But consider how much time that will use that could have been used doing your thesis. If you can code the controller circuits for the hardware, that may be useful, with the same caveat. And in all such cases, you may be competing with laboratory tech staff.
But a PhD thesis in which you invented some new thing that helped out at some big lab would probably have a lot of appeal.
There will be tons of numerical analysis. Signal processing to understand and "decode" the output of a detector. For example, some experiments involve recording a huge volume of candidate events, then filtering it to find the specific category of events you are looking for. Database, AI filtering, and just plain-old number crunching. Say from a book such as [Numerical Recipes](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0521880688). Note that there are versions of this book for several different computer languages, including C, C++, FORTRAN, maybe others. And you should treat this book as a "first intro" to the topics in it, looking for more advanced and powerful methods if you start working in the field. But it gives you lots of things in a form you can "get up the curve" on.
Another entire topic is Monte Carlo methods. This is a method of doing numerical experiments to try to predict the frequency of various events by throwing a bunch of random numbers at it. This would come at the data from the other end by attempting to predict what the detector would see in the case of a particular event. Maybe you can work out the "fingerprint" for a given event. Look for this combo and you know you have found the elusive anti-schmadron.
Another area is data visualization. When you are doing some horrendous large dataset coming out of some experiment, you want some way to present the information so people can comprehend it. Often you first. (Grin.) Maybe you want to learn apps that deal with such things such as MATLAB and related. Or maybe you want to learn to do 3-D visualization. There are several popular apps that deal with that, but I have not been involved in them.
If you are designing a detector (or some such hardware) you may want to learn 3-D CAD/CAM software. Again, there are several popular ones but I don't know them.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/23
| 571
| 2,182
|
<issue_start>username_0: I sent an edited volume proposal to a series editor, and she replied, starting her email with: "Dear [my first name] (if I may?)". She also signed with her first name.
I'm fine with first-name basis, so I would certainly say that she may.
Now my question is, should I address her by first name too?
My dilemma:
1. If I do, I'm afraid that I might sound disrespectful, since:
* She's a very senior professor (there is a "power imbalance" between us)
* She doesn't invite me to do so (but maybe this is tacit, since she signed by first name?)
2. If I don't and keep addressing her Prof. [Last name], I'm afraid that I might sound aloof.
What is the etiquette in academia? I've worked with volume editors before, but they're about my age and position, so we reverted to first-name easily.
My instinct is to stick with "Prof [Last name]" until I get an obvious invitation (e.g. "please feel free to call me [first name]").
Thanks for your insight.
P.S. She's based in the UK, if that means anything.<issue_comment>username_1: TL;DR: You already received an invitation to call her by her first name.
In (modern) western cultures, if you are an adult and someone more senior (in standing) addresses you by your first name, you follow their guidance and address them by their first name. Not doing so is usually rude. Exceptions apply, e.g., if you are communicating with the Queen.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It should be fine (and likely correct) to use her first name. AFAIK signing with one's first name is typically a signal that you can (even preferably) address them by their first name, and the fact she specifically asked to address you by your first name in my opinion strengthens this. If you stick with Prof., she may feel uncomfortable addressing you by your first name, or may even consider it a subtle rebuff toward her request to address you informally.
Anecdotally, I also found this fairly difficult when I first started out in the UK - I stuck with using Dr., Professor, etc. regardless of familiarity early on, until one of my supervisors directly asked me to address them by their first name.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/24
| 980
| 3,651
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am planning to apply for a Ph.D. grant. I have two options, one in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and the other one in Stuttgart, Germany.
The one in Amsterdam is 38h per week. The remuneration is
`€2,395 to € 4,402 gross per month` and a favorable tax agreement, the ‘30% ruling’, may apply to non-Dutch applicants, I am not Dutch.
The one in Stuttgart is 40h per week and the remuneration is according to `(TV-L E13 level).`
How much the net salary will be?
I don't know how much income tax will apply in either of these countries.
I know there are a lot of other factors I need to take into consideration.
If you have any suggestions or recommendations,
please share them here.
Thank you so much.<issue_comment>username_1: Quite certainly the number of hours listed will be irrelevant. It would be extremely unusual for a PhD student to be on the clock.
The salary range listed for Amsterdam is gigantic. Your net salary in Germany will depend on various personal factors, e.g. whether you are married, if so how much your spouse makes; whether you have children and what religion you are. However, in both cases the salary will ultimately be *sufficient for a modest lifestyle*; and that is what matters.
The aspects you should focus on are:
1. Do you forsee that working in the research group will be pleasant and productive?
2. Do you trust that the PhD supervisor will be capable and willing to act as an effective mentor for you?
3. Is the idea of living in Amsterdam or Stuttgart respectively for several years appealing to you? Or at least, not off-putting? [If you are planning to bring anyone else along, the same question applies to them.]
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The salary range for the Amsterdam position is almost certainly a mistake and should read €2395 to €3061. It would average out (over the 4 years and your progression through the salary range) to ~€2200 after taxes per month but there are holiday and end-of-year bonuses which push it up to ~€2400. Additionally, €500/month is going towards a pension fund. This is money you can't immediately access but obviously it still has value.
If the 30% ruling applies (one of the conditions is that you need to be under 30, have a master's degree and relocate from abroad), 30% of the income will be untaxed. As a very rough first estimate, this would net you an additional €200-400 per month (at the expense of losing out on some relatively insignificant social security benefits).
I don't know the German situation well enough to comment on that, but hopefully this gives you a rough idea of what you would earn in the Netherlands. Note that, for a proper comparsion, in the Netherlands you must have mandatory health insurance which is ~€100/month (which you could view as a kind of tax).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: A full time TV-L 13 position in Germany will give you roughly 2200€ oft net income in the first year, and it increases after 1 year, and again after 2 years.
So I would guess the amount of money you will have in both Amsterdam and Stuttgart will not differ by much more than a few 100€.
From a pure money perspective, you should thus consider:
* how much would you roughly spend in each city for rent, food etc.?
* how far are the cities from your current home or your family and would you spend considerably more from one of the to places to travel to those?
But as @username_1 already remarked, the more important things to consider are the academic surroundings in each place, the research abilities, the prospective colleagues and mentors, as well as things like local language and culture.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/24
| 2,135
| 9,050
|
<issue_start>username_0: When writing a paper, there are inevitably mistakes. Many of these can be caught by careful revision, and the more time spend revising, the more mistakes which will be caught. However, clearly a draft should be submitted at some point.
**How should one determine this cutoff point?** How much does it vary by field, individual, etc?
As a concrete example, I recently submitted a paper to a big ML conference where one of our results was off by a factor of two. While we fortunately caught this error before the camera ready version, the experience has caused me to question whether I am spending sufficient time on revising my work before submission. I have heard that such errors repeatedly occurring in published work can seriously damage your reputation in math.
On the other hand, I wonder if the standard for errors like this differ across disciplines. For instance, if we had submitted the paper to a journal in applied math, then I believe such an error would have been caught by the referees since the review process there is more fine grained. Thus, it also seems possible that fields in CS, where conferences with short review processes (relative to math journals) are standard, have a lower threshold on what what kind of errors are acceptable to the community.
I've already discussed this with my advisor. However, I am also interested in hearing the thoughts of others on the issue.
---
Edit: Thanks everyone for the responses! I'd also be interested in the second part of the question about how these standards vary across disciplines, individuals, etc.<issue_comment>username_1: Ideally, the desired error number is zero. But as you observe, it is difficult to achieve. One problem is that the author of a paper is probably the least able to proofread it. (Maybe not literally "least", but I hope you get the point.) The reason is that when reading your own work what you "see" on the page is too often what you thought your wrote, not what you did write. Your brain glosses over errors.
What you need to stamp out errors is a set of fresh eyes of people with enough background to find any errors. They aren't influenced by what you were thinking when you wrote the paper. This is one of the main benefits of the reviewer system, actually.
An important author in CS (Don Knuth) has the practice of funding bounties for errors found in his book. He will send a check to the first person to catch any error. (He is so renowned, however, that few cash the checks anymore.)
So, you do what you can, being as careful as you can, for as long as is reasonable. But get some new "eyes" on your work.
---
Note also that some important errors in important papers have gone uncaught for decades. I once found an error in a paper by a renowned mathematician about 40 years after the paper was published. I don't claim to be the first to notice, of course.
I'm working on a long term project and have, after a few versions, still seen some incredibly bone-headed errors. The biggest thing holding me back is the lack of those "other" eyes.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Depends on mistakes. If these are crucial mistakes in arguments, you should correct them before submitting the paper. It is doable. Misprints, on the other hand, are not that important and you do not need to catch them all. So to submit your paper you need to be absolutely sure that the arguments are correct. Recently I edited a paper submitted to "my" journal. The referee found that all proofs are correct. Then I found lots of small misprints and gave the authors a few weeks to proofread the text. When they do that, I intend to recommend the paper for acceptance.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to typos-versus-flawed-proofs, there is another distinction worth making, I think. Namely, some proofs really are (perhaps) delicate computations (or other intensely symbolic lines of reasoning), and thus their persuasiveness and believability is already somewhat fragile. For example, here typos are terrible.
In some contrast, some written arguments are more "narratives" of a procedure/process that could be carried out, with many details visibly dictated by "the plan". If/when the details are determined in a more top-down fashion (or can be made to seem so), the argument is much less sensitive to typos (or even larger blunders...)
I'm not claiming that there's a dichotomy of innate nature of arguments. Rather, I'm advocating more-narrative approaches to what might otherwise invite fairly fragile, long computations without a good accompanying narrative. More-narrative approaches *can* be more robust, and less sensitive to typos and other errors.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: **Assume the perspective of a Reviewer.**
As a Reviewer, I will never reject a paper because of "mere" typos *unless*:
* they make the paper unre**a**dable. But this happens when the author(s) spend no time in spellchecking, or have very little English writing expertise (and both of these are different problems)
* they are still widely present after the first round of review. I can tolerate some typos in the first submission, but my acceptance level decreases for subsequent rounds, especially if I made it clear that the paper required revisions in the English text (but this is also a different circumstance than what you are likely referring to)
* the typo affects a crucial claim. These are the most crucial offenders, because these "mistakes" undermine the credibility of the paper and can be the ground for rejection. I once rejected a paper because the authors stated "X" as the main contribution of the paper *in the Introduction*, and then stated "not X" as the main contribution of the paper *in Section 2*; the rest of the text did not allow me to determine which was right, and most of the remaining paper was too complex for my expertise, so I suggested a rejection. Note that this was explicitly due to the usage of the word "not", which can single handedly flip the table around.
* the typo affects Proofs. This is self explanatory and is strictly related to the previous point, but it demanded a dedicated entry.
* the typo affects the Results (numbers, tables, figures). The result section is arguably (depending on the field) very important and usually the source of many significant mistakes - which may or may not be considered as typos. Consider a 2d plot where you have two horizontal lines, a red at y=3 and a blue at y=6: if in the text you say that "the blue line is clearly lower" that is a big problem. Was the mistake due to (i) the incorrect use of the "black/red" color, (ii) incorrect use of the "lower/higher" term, or (iii) maybe it was a problem *in the plot*? As a Reviewer I do not know, and hence I can use this issue to reject the paper.
In summary, my recommendation is to try to point out the key areas in your paper that are likely to be read by Reviewers and focus on having those completely free of mistakes. Perfection is difficult to guarantee, so at least focus on the big picture.
As a final suggestion, make the Abstract error free: abstract with typos are a red flag.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Perspective of a recent PhD student here:
You learn to make papers "better" by writing papers. And by "better" here I mean useful to your audience. The goal of academic writing is not to create perfect piece of text that will stay valid forever, but to help others and to move the scientific discussion forward. You can do it even when you have mistakes and typos.
By writing and submitting more work you will improve your work process (for me it was learning to slow down and letting papers "marinate" for a few weeks without me working on them). You will also see your mistakes published, which will remind you to try harder next time.
However, typos (not critical logic/math mistakes) and other blemishes are not disqualifiers for an academic piece to be useful.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Here is my approach (pure math):
* I consider a paper ready for submission when I personally am completely convinced of it's correctness. If I only think, "it's probably okay", that's not good enough. That said, I do put more effort into verifying central statements than tangential asides.
* When possible, I try to cross-check my results in different ways (do they contradict other approaches or heursitics) and compute examples. For me, computing examples and comparing with related results in the literature is very important for finding errors and convincing myself my finalized version is correct.
* Explain the work to others, and ask others for feedback.
* After I finish writing the paper, I put it aside for a couple of weeks, and then reread it as carefully as I have the energy to. If there were significant changes, repeat this. Do this again after referee reports.
This doesn't mean all of my papers are error free, but as far as I know there are no major errors in the final versions of my papers.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/24
| 850
| 3,914
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does it ever happen that some form of consensus (tacitely, maybe) forms by which people in a field that *"X is doing exceptional work these days, let's not ask them any refereeing for a couple years"*, with the understanding that it is beneficial for the whole field to let these individuals finish a stream of work with as little side-traxls as possible ?<issue_comment>username_1: I'll have to guess that will never happen, but not for the reasons you think. Editors who send out requests for reviewers are always looking for the best reviews and they may need to ask a lot of people before they get an acceptance. Once you get into the pool of reviewers of an editor, expect to receive a lot of requests. The call may be very broad.
In the somewhat exceptional case in which an editor is actually a working academic in that field then it might be possible for them to make the determination of "... exceptional work..." that you mention, but, unless they also know the person will likely refuse, it would probably make it even more likely they would ask. But editors are normally part of a business and make their decisions based on the needs of the journal. Even conference program chairs cast a broad net.
It has tapered off now (ten years in to retirement) but I'd get requests more or less daily, even after I told the editor I wasn't interested anymore.
But, a good reviewer is so incredibly valuable to an editor that they are going to ask. Their needs and value system would overrule any such consideration without some personal relationship and a specific request for a time-out.
---
A "top researcher" might wonder if they'd made some faux pas if they didn't get requests for a year or two. "What??? Did I fall off the edge of the world???"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me first say this situation is pretty much limited to pure mathematics and adjacent fields, because norms for peer review means that peer review takes an order of magnitude more time in mathematics than in almost all other fields.
I don't think this actually happens, but there are various situations that approximate this.
0. Many journals are careful to not make too many requests to postdocs or graduate students even in cases where they are highly qualified to review the paper. A number of editors will not send papers to people who will soon be looking for a new position and are trying to get some research out ahead of applying. This is because postdocs might not know how to say no when they should, whereas tenured faculty should have by now learned to protect their time when necessary.
1. Some leading figures say no a lot. Well, they all say no a lot because they get so many requests, but some say no more than others.
2. Some leading figures are irresponsible as referees, frequently turning in cursory reports months late. Eventually most editors figure out that sending them papers is a bad idea.
3. A number of the relatively more prestigious mathematics journals have moved to a two stage reviewing process, where papers are first sent to an experienced mathematician for a quick opinion on their suitability for a journal before being sent for refereeing. It frequently happens that a journal ends up sending an experienced mathematician many requests for pre-review of this sort and no longer sends them papers for full review. (Sometimes this experienced mathematician might say that a paper is suitable for the journal and volunteer to do the full review if they're interested in reading the paper carefully.)
4. One of the precursors to the ongoing development of this pre-review system are mathematicians who made a habit of only providing quick but relatively cursory reviews of papers. Frequently they acquired a reputation for doing so and editors would send them requests for reviews knowing this was what they were going to get.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/25
| 1,134
| 4,875
|
<issue_start>username_0: If a student receives a scholarship for their (B.Sc. or M.Sc.) studies, but at the same time works on a project that is totally unrelated to their studies voluntarily and receives no funding for the project from any entity, should this student acknowledge the scholarship in the paper?
To make it clear, the scholarship is given just for the purpose of the student completing their studies and the project is not a part of it, but regardless the student works on this project in their free time and receives no funding for their work.<issue_comment>username_1: (As far as I know) If the scholarship is unrelated to the study you are trying to publish, you do not have to acknowledge the funding source/scholarship.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If the scholarship indirectly gives you the opportunity to conduct the research, for example by freeing up time that may otherwise be spent in a part time job, it would seem appropriate to acknowledge it.
It might depend on the level of unrelated, an undergraduate research project in your university (yes) vs a community project litter picking (no). Still, unless inappropriate, I would always err on the side of acknowledging support as significant as a scholarship to complete a degree.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It depends on the scholarship but if the work is part of the studies, and the scholarship is for the studies, it may have to be acknowledged, even if the topic of study is not specified. (Some Grad. Scholarships work that way.)
In most cases I know where an acknowledgment is required or expected, the scholarship comes with explicit instructions on what should or need not be acknowledged. Certainly most research grants come with such stipulation.
You might have to check with the contact person either at the grant agency or its delegate (possibly a university financial aid person) if you want a definite answer.
However, as a rule, it doesn’t cost anything to acknowledge a scholarship, so why not do it unless it’s clearly out of place?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I second others' comments that acknowledgements are low-cost and the indirect support of a scholarship in allowing one to engage in research may be sufficient reason to include it.
But here's another way of thinking about it.
Many agencies you will get funding from for your academic work are only the lowest members of a towering hierarchy of agencies. As an example, consider the US Department of Energy's Org Chart:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sC1Wx.jpg)
Say I get a small grant from the Western Area Power Administration, which is nested under the Assistant Secretary for Electricity under the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy under the Office of the Secretary under something... something... the POTUS.
Each level within an organization can compete for funding with other agencies at the level in a zero-sum fashion. The output of fundees is evidence that an organization is using its funding well and should continue to receive that funding, rather than it being given to one of many other needy, competing agencies.
This is one reason agencies like XSEDE supercomputing place [such a strong emphasis](https://www.xsede.org/for-users/acknowledgement) on citations and standardized acknowledgements: this allows them to mine publications to justify their continued budgetary allocations.
Because acknowledgements are helpful to my funders and I want to reciprocate the help they've given me, I try to build a "big tent" with my acknowledgements and err on the side of including folks.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I would *not* mention it. The scholarship didn't support your work. It supported your studies (which I take to mean tuition, housing, etc.) just as it was intended to, and anything outside that is your own life. It's nobody's business how you finance independent parts of your life. In fact by mentioning it you're basically giving another entity that has no rights to your work a reason to doubt themselves and wonder whether they may have some claim to your work after all. Just as honesty requires you to give credit where it's due, it also requires you to *avoid giving credit where it's not due*.
What I think you do want to do, though, is mention your university affiliation in the paper (like where people usually mention it along with their emails), at least if you even talked to anyone affiliated with the university about the topics in your paper.
Also, I'm assuming the scholarship was solely for your studies (tuition), not for research. If your degree program has an official research component you're being paid to do, even if it's not this particular project, then it's muddier and would really depend on the situation I think.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/25
| 396
| 1,678
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently applying for an informal(?) internship at my school and the employer asked if I knew any faculty or staff members well enough to write me a recommendation. I have only just completed freshmen year and don't really know any of the teachers well and long enough that I'd be comfortable asking for a recommendation. My math professor did write me a short informal recommendation when I applied to be a math TA, but I don't believe we're close enough for him to write one for an internship.
Should I take a risk and ask my math professor or just tell the employer that I don't know anyone well enough?
Background info about math professor: I had him for two semesters and would go to his office hours maybe 3-4 times a semester to ask questions or just talk about math. Not sure if this is enough though to constitute him as a good recommender.<issue_comment>username_1: You do what you can. Having someone with a positive opinion of you is probably much better than having no one. There isn't a lot they can say, possibly, but for this it probably isn't critical.
But as you go along, make sure you develop some relationships so that this doesn't arise when it *is* critical.
If he was your supervisor for the TA then he probably has a good enough idea. But if it was another, you might look to them, also.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have excellent grades on the courses he/she teaches and show good attitudes and abilities while working as TA, then I think it is totally possible.
You probably only need your math professor to write a single letter for one employer, so that won't bother him/her too much.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/25
| 1,003
| 4,076
|
<issue_start>username_0: This question is aimed at the countries where the graduate program admission decisions are normally made at the department level; the primary sources of funding are TAs/RAs and there is at least one year of coursework prior to the transition to full-time research (e.g., the US).
It is likely that I will be looking to apply to graduate programs in applied mathematics next year (however, the question can be generalized to certain other STEM disciplines, I believe). I have filtered a number of schools based on my research interests (somewhere around applied dynamical systems, control, bifurcation and stability analysis, applications in mechanics), but it is still a reasonably long list. I would like to understand how can I select a (fixed) number of graduate programs from this list so that my chances of admission somewhere are maximized.
I am looking at schools in a wide range starting from around 30 down to 150+ according to the rankings in the subject area, all of them being within the R1/R2 range. However, I have a concern that there may be little correlation between how selective a given program is and how well it does in the rankings. For example, some schools state explicitly that they admit exactly 5 students to their graduate program each year (while there seem to be others that admit well over 20 graduate students each year). In other cases, I would speculate that the location of the school might make up for its lower “reputation” and warrant fierce competition for positions. I could also speculate that private universities may be more selective than the public ones at around the same “reputation/quality level”.
Is it possible to devise a reasonably generic methodology that can be used to filter schools that, in all likelihood, will have less stringent or even reasonably lax admission requirements? Otherwise, I am looking for any helpful hints/advice.
---
A few notes:
* It is likely that I may be classified as a “borderline/weak” applicant, primarily, because I will be trying to make a transition from my undergraduate engineering degree to graduate studies in applied mathematics, not because I did not do well during my studies as an undergraduate. Also, by now, I am far from being young (I have spent quite a number of years working in the industry since graduation).
* This is not a shopping question, I am asking for a methodology for the selection of programs.
* I am familiar with the questions [How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly), [How should I choose which graduate programs to apply to for the PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11985/how-should-i-choose-which-graduate-programs-to-apply-to-for-the-phd) and a few other similar questions on this website. However, I believe that they do not provide an answer to my question (in a certain sense, my question is a specialization of [How should I choose which graduate programs to apply to for the PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11985/how-should-i-choose-which-graduate-programs-to-apply-to-for-the-phd)).<issue_comment>username_1: You do what you can. Having someone with a positive opinion of you is probably much better than having no one. There isn't a lot they can say, possibly, but for this it probably isn't critical.
But as you go along, make sure you develop some relationships so that this doesn't arise when it *is* critical.
If he was your supervisor for the TA then he probably has a good enough idea. But if it was another, you might look to them, also.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have excellent grades on the courses he/she teaches and show good attitudes and abilities while working as TA, then I think it is totally possible.
You probably only need your math professor to write a single letter for one employer, so that won't bother him/her too much.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/25
| 1,692
| 7,381
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have found that most top US CS PhD programs **don't require** a personal statement (PS). **Only a few schools** put the PS into their application checklist.
As for the requirement of PS, take an [example](https://grad.berkeley.edu/admissions/apply/personal-statement/) from UC Berkely, the personal statement shall emphasize the obstacles for one's achievement. It means that unlike statement of purpose (SOP) which demonstrates one's research ability and potential, PS seems to care more about personal life challenges.
I am wondering about how much **weight** the PS has in a PhD application. If it is not that critical, then I tend to write **later** and spend **less** time.
I am really appreciated if someone could share their experience. Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: Personal statements are a hold-over from an earlier era, where schools were more interested in assessing *character*. Even as late as the 80s (and still in places today) grad schools saw themselves as producing well-rounded, thoroughly awesome übermenschen, and not just anyone would do. Academia has become more and more professionalized, standardized, and bureaucratized (more's the pity), so achievement metrics have taken on a greater role in candidate selection. But I wouldn't neglect the personal statement.
Think of the personal statement as an opportunity to make a personal connection, above and beyond the (for lack of a better term) clinical data that will make up the rest of your application. You want to tune it so that if a reviewer is sitting there trying to decide between you and an equally qualified other, he'll think: "You know, I *like* this person." A good, honest personal statement gives a small edge in highly competitive environment.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Since asking for a Personal Statement isn't ubiquitous, let me suggest that the meaning is likely dependent on the university that asks for it. Hopefully, like UCB, they provide some guidance.
Nearly everyone in US will want a Statement of Purpose (SoP) so spend some time and effort on that one. Make it forward focused on goals. Use the past only to support the future, not to explain past failures or obstacles.
But you might also keep something for a personal statement, perhaps in the form of an outline or set of bullet points that you can draw on to write a specific one, tailored to the definition given by some university. I suspect that the requirements will vary from place to place so keep an idea of lots of things - inspirations, obstacles overcome, key influences, and the like.
The weight of it will also depend, but I doubt that it will be determinative, except at the margins. A US application depends on a broad look at many aspects with letters being more important than elsewhere.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me answer your question in two parts.
First, weight:
--------------
>
> I am wondering about how much weight the PS has in a PhD application. If it is not that critical, then I tend to write later and spend less time.
>
>
>
This is not a good way to think about a PhD application. A competitive program may have several hundred applications and perhaps ten spots. In such an environment each part of your application should be as strong as you can make it. While some of the folks competing for spots in the program might weight their effort like you suggest, there are enough good people that will produce thoroughly polished applications that one with an obvious deficiency will not make the cut.
Deadlines for most programs begin November 1st and end sometime in mid-December. You will be judged strongly if you cannot write a good personal statement and research proposal within the next three months (as of the time I write this answer). Start writing some drafts now, get plenty of feedback from good writers you trust, and you'll be fine.
Second, what is the personal statement for?
-------------------------------------------
**Zeroth, to demonstrate writing ability.**
Academia is about continuously justifying and advocating for yourself, in writing. This happens in grant applications, fellowship applications, the papers you write, cover letters, emails to colleagues, Twitter posts, &c. If you cannot write in a compelling fashion, grad school will be harder.
**But, primarily, to contextualize your application.**
This is especially true if your application has "deficiencies". Your CV might show a multi-year break in research or your research proposal might be somewhat under-developed. Perhaps this is because you were a single parent at some point, or had a medical condition you needed to sort out, or you're first-generation and didn't have good advising during/before/after your undergrad, or you're switching fields, or you decided to take time off to travel the world.
All of the above possibilities, and more, can lead an application to look academically weaker. But, with the appropriate "spin" a personal statement turns your weaknesses into advantages. You learn things through adverse experiences and they can drive your desire to pursue a particular path.
Will I take the straight-A student from a wealthy New Jersey background who happens to have an interest in anaerobic digestion, or a slightly less stellar student who grew up having to dig pit latrines and wants to research ways of improving them? The latter has a lot of personal motivation and context that may lead them to do better research, but this is not easily expressed on a CV and may not be appropriate in a research statement.
**Second, to show something of your character.**
Grad school can be hard. Graduate students as a population have high rates of depression and work, often alone, in environments with poorly-defined objectives, competing priorities, and minimal oversight, often while facing financial stress. 50% of PhD students leave (power to them!) their programs. Completion of a program does not necessarily lead to personal enrichment or dream jobs.
A personal statement which can speak to one's resiliency and goals provides evidence that a potential admit will be able to handle the challenges described above (whether directly or by finding the support they need and advocating for themselves).
Both of the above reasons are why a program might want, as you say,
>
> the personal statement [to] emphasize the obstacles for one's achievement
>
>
>
**Third, to show something of your personality.**
Ted put it well in [his answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/171593/34790): if someone walks away from reading your personal statement thinking, "*I like this person*" or some variant thereof, you've done well.
**Finally, as an argument.**
Your research proposal may or may not have room to discuss why, intellectually, you belong at your chosen program. But your personal statement surely has room. Personal statements tell the Story of You, and that story explains why, logically, your chosen institution is the right place for you given what you've done and what you plan to do in the future.
The personal statement and research proposal complement and support each other in making the argument that what you're doing makes sense, that your chosen institution is the best place for you to do that, and that you being there is of mutual benefit.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2021/07/25
| 888
| 3,594
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in pure math. It seems like "postdoc mentors" are common nowadays in U.S. universities. The idea is that you do a postdoc under the supervision of someone whom you can write papers with. My impression though is that a lot of mathematicians didn't have postdoc mentors. Would it be a bad sign to not have a postdoc mentor? Would it be negative for productivity and developing a publication record and recommendation letters?<issue_comment>username_1: This depends on the individual and the department that you join, in math, anyway. If there are a few (or a lot) faculty in your specialty and they hold periodic seminars to discuss one another's work, then a mentor probably isn't needed.
But if you still feel a bit shaky in your research ability, then a mentor might help give you a boost. I don't think it would be a bad sign to not have a mentor (or to have one), but you want to make enough faculty contacts and earn the respect of your colleagues so that you get a boost for your next steps.
Of course, there are a lot more joint papers these days than there were in the past. You want the opportunity for collaboration, however you can arrange it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is true that, long ago, when "post docs" were not as numerous as now, there was no idea at all that you'd have a mentor. Rather, even though you'd be a new PhD, you were "an expert". And, also, long ago, joint papers were not so common.
That culture has not disappeared, unfortunately. Yes, in my opinion, sensible people *of\_course* think in terms of mentoring... But this viewpoint is not universal.
Joint papers are a yet-subtler thing: good to have a collaboration, but these days, still, a joint paper with a senior person (in math) may be less of a CV-boost than a solo paper. As an "old person" myself, I try to give useful advice to junior people without trying to get my name on their papers.
EDIT: to answer more of the question, ... letters of recommendation for your next job do need to come from people who have engaged with you. This doesn't have to be a "mentor", though obviously a person who takes that role should be in a good position to write a helpful letter. At least in the old days ^tm, a postdoc's goal was to make a good impression on at least a few senior people in the dept, for letters. Seminar talks were the usual way.
I think the letter-of-recommendation concern is more substantial than "productivity", in saner parts of math. :)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think there is some confusion about what a "postdoc mentor" is actually supposed to do.
But, to start with, let me just say that I don't think *anyone* can be successful in an academic career without a mentor. A mentor is supposed to help a mentee go through their career by providing advice on the many things a newly graduated PhD simply cannot know: How to deal with reviewing papers, how applications are read by hiring committees, how to become a mentor to students themselves, how to deal with authorship disputes, how to write grant applications, and many other things. *That* is what a mentor is supposed to do, and because so many things in academia are sub-discipline-specific, it only makes sense that such a mentor comes from the same sub-discipline.
That *often* leads to joint papers, but that is a side effect and not the main reason to have a mentor for postdocs. The main reason is simply to ensure that the people we hire into postdoc positions don't fall through the cracks but are successful in their careers!
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/07/26
| 3,552
| 15,402
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have come across a [published dataset](https://doi.org/10.15146/5xcp-0d46) which comes with a note saying that: (1) the authors of the dataset would like to be informed of any papers that use it (2) they might request co-authorship depending on how much the paper depends on the data.
I am feeling ambivalent about using this dataset. On the one hand, I appreciate that the authors chose to make it public, despite the many man-hours of work that went into creating it. On the other hand, it seems unusual that the creator of an already published dataset would request co-authorship on a paper they did not otherwise contribute to.
I am interested in using such a dataset for an idea, but I am reluctant to put significant work into a project when there is a risk (even if a small risk) that the dataset's creator may interfere with publication. Accepting co-authorship essentially means agreeing that the co-author may delay publication or may attempt to shape the paper, possibly in ways I am unhappy with.
Are such requests common? Are they reasonable? Is it reasonable to ignore such a request, given that the dataset is public?
I understand that this question may read like a nitpick. Realistically, I don't expect trouble. Yet it bothers me that starting to work with this dataset appears to essentially require agreeing that my work may be interfered with. It seems like a rather unreasonable "have your cake and eat it" mentality on part of the dataset author when releasing the data.<issue_comment>username_1: They can request whatever they like, but you don't have to accede to their wishes unless you think it is valid. If they don't actually contribute to the intellectual content of the paper, then they aren't due authorship, but certainly need to be acknowledged with a citation. Saying "thanks" explicitly would be polite, also.
I've never heard of such a thing (but don't hear everything). I doubt that it is "usual" or "common" in any sense.
You make the decisions. Use normal ethical principles about what does and does not constitute authorship.
---
An exception would be if there are specific licensing terms, though, normally, data *per se* can't be copyrighted and so no license is needed.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: While I do not generally disagree with username_1's thought-through answer, I think there is another thing to consider which makes it more difficult to judge whether their demand is unreasonable or legitimate.
There is a change in perspective these days. With mounting demands for research transparency, there is increasing moral pressure for groups to publish their data.
Normally, a group might get multiple publications out of such a good-quality set of data. With the pressure to publish it, it may be that this groups tries a different model - if they can not keep the data exclusive to themselves for a longer period over which they develop their papers, they seem to try to ask for a different way of both permitting transparency and reap the benefits of having developed the data set. A citation may not be sufficient when they could have multiple publications instead, so this is the way they try to proceed to make the effort worth their time.
In addition, I am not sure what the copyright situation is. username_1 says that data are not copyrightable, however, it may be that the preparation/curation of the data still gives them a copyright. I would be very surprised if that famous (notorious) book listing random numbers (<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Million-Random-Digits-Normal-Deviates/dp/0833030477> ; reading the reviews is highly recommended before buying) were not copyrighted - but then, it's just random numbers, no?
In summary, it is unusual for an author to request co-publication based on someone using their published information, but this might be an experiment in transparent science. Maybe, if they find it is not worth their time, in the future they won't publish data before they have had extracted their fill of publications from it.
As hard criterion for OP, the only thing you really have to obey is copyright law and the academic standard of citation, possibly acknowledgements. But it might be worth considering whether you might find value in contemplating their demands and - who knows - possibly finding interesting new collaborators. Of course, academic standards require that they contribute intellectually to your paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If you read the license (on the right side of the webpage you provided the link for), it states that "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law."
In other words, they waived all their rights. I think their request for notification or co-autorship is not obligatory but voluntary. I guess they mean 'they might be requesting to be co-authors', but accepting or not depends on you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Trying actively to find a situation where I'd think this request may sensible:
They may think it likely that further work with their data will lead to lots of genuine discussion about the data between you and them. I.e., to them actually contributing intellectually to your study in a manner that warrants co-authorship.
I could think of such a scenario if e.g. a machine learning group would want to try out things with data I acquire. Such a group would typically not bring much expertise in the particular data-generation/measurement processes nor in the underlying application field. In consequence, a study may genuinely benefit from added expertise in all three domains.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I request that if you read the rest of this answer, you upvote it, send me a check for $100, and include me as a coauthor on your next paper.
See what I did there? It wasn’t unreasonable, I merely made a *request*. If it had been a *demand*, it would be quite unreasonable on the other hand. The same goes for these authors, who merely wrote (coyly using the passive voice to distance themselves from the obviously rather silly thing they are writing) that
>
> […] Depending on our level of interest and how much a paper depends on the BCI plot, co-authorship **might be requested**.
>
>
>
(Emphasis added.)
So, as @username_1 says, a person can ask for a pony, coauthorship or anything else that strikes their fancy. All you would actually owe them if you use the database is the same thing you owe anyone else whose published work you make use of, which is a citation.
If you read this far, I request that you ignore my earlier request, and that you ignore these database authors’ equally illogical one.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: All of the thoughts you raise about co-authorship are negative!
* The data folks might delay publication
* The data folks might shape the paper
As others have said, this is in the public domain, so you are not required to make the data folks co-authors. But I think you should consider the many benefits:
* You build new collaborations. Later, this leads to Letters of Rec, conference invites, early notification about new datasets, someone on a faculty selection committee who knows your name.
* The data folks *understand their data*. You may think that you do, but data can have subtle issues. A co-authorship incentivizes the data folks to help you interpret their data as accurately as possible.
* The data folks may have more, unpublished data. Bringing them aboard as co-authors could give you the opportunity to explore the topic in a broader or more nuanced way if it provides the data folks an avenue for getting more data out there.
* The data folks turn out to be good writers and your final paper is better for bringing them aboard. Personally, I know I often grow tired of a paper in the final stages of working with it. Having coauthors continue to raise nit-picks is annoying, but when we submit I'm much more confident that the final product is of high quality.
* You learn more about collaboration/coordination/leadership. Increasingly, science is a team sport, so playing it that works in your favour.
When I go to seminars, I'm always awed by the final slides of the presentation where the speaker shows the veritable army of collaborators they've led in producing their Science Thing. Correlation isn't causation, but if you want to go around and give seminars, collaborating widely seems like it helps get you there.
Build a big tent :-)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> On the other hand, it seems unusual that the creator of an already published dataset would request co-authorship on a paper they did not otherwise contribute to.
>
>
>
I do not think they are asking for co-authorship on a paper they did not otherwise contribute to; I think they are *soliciting a collaboration* with someone who is interested in using their data. "co-authorship might be requested" should be interpreted as "we might ask to be involved at a level suitable for authorship".
They have not released their data with a license requiring that they are included as coauthors, so this is a request rather than condition of using the data.
I have personally authored papers based on data collected by others, with coauthors whose contribution to the paper was primarily their involvement with data collection rather than any of the analyses. Those collaborators made the effort to be authors by providing the data, helping with data extraction, reviewing the manuscript and discussing the analysis approaches even if they didn't do that directly, and most importantly by *knowing and being experts about the data itself*. Even well-annotated data can have little quirks that are not transparent to someone unfamiliar with the data. Sometimes there could be additional data or caveats that hasn't made it into the shared version and you'd very much want to know about this as someone using the data.
Though authorship conventions vary a bit by field, in the authors' field it is common to have multiple coauthors and there is no implied dilution of the effort of other authors (especially the first author) by having additional coauthors. The cost of their ask is pretty low, and if I was planning to use their data I'd want to contact them about their interest and if they were interested and planning to contribute then I'd certainly give them the opportunity to meet authorship standards.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_8: Data sets are a bit like software. Often they are regarded to be not publishable by themselves, but some scientific contribution like new insight have to be generated with the software / from the data set.
If this is not the case, the author gets a publication for this data set / software and everybody using it will cite this paper. Any further authorship would come with additional contributions to new papers.
If there is no such paper, it becomes more tricky, as the original author cannot gain scientific credit (publications, citations) with his work.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I had one case of data being produced in a research center and used in my publication. The one who built the experiment and measured the data did not contribute to the paper.
I added him as a co-author because I could not have written my paper without his work. I felt that he deserved actual academic recognition for his work (his name on a paper), not only a thank you.
This despite him not having worked at all on the paper.
PS. This is usual in particle physics where the 1256 authors do not participate in the write-up of a paper, their name just lands as co-author because of "collaboration". I personally was not listing such papers in my CV.
*EDIT following the comments: the data was not published elsewhere, this post is to show a case of someone producing data, not participating in the paper at all and still being listed as a co-author*
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: Is the dataset related to forest ecology? Because this is the norm there. The logic is that there is a lot of field work, which is really heavy work, which goes unappreciated with a simple citation. I've seen papers with 20 authors, because they used datasets which were authored by teams of 10+ people.
I personally do not agree with this view, but I've heard it and seen it in practice quite a bit.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: This is going to depend on standards in your field.
In medicine, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors defines an author as someone who meets 4 criteria:
```
• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
```
And further says that anyone who meets the first criterion should be given the opportunity to meet the others.
In this case it sounds like the data provided by a 3rd party is fairly substantial. They’ve met criterion 1 - they made substantial contributions to acquiring the data on which the paper is based. Therefore they should be offered the opportunity to meet the others and become an author, and this would be expected should the paper be submitted to one of the journals which subscribes to the ICMJE rules.
<http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html>
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_12: The key words here are the words "would like" and the word "might" in "might request". The creators of the dataset would like to know how their data is being used. If somebody uses a dataset in a way that the creator views as inappropriate, the reputation of the creator can be badly damaged. Sometimes, they might have a valid suggestion or comment and might be able to provide you with other sources. Other times, they may find your article useful in their research. So it's really just members of the academic community being polite to each other.
There have been a number of cases involving global warming and vaccines where there have been complaints that their data has been misused. No researcher likes to be attacked without warning by journalists saying "It has been claimed that your data proves that global warming doesn't exist" or "It has been claimed that your data proves that global warming exists".
With the mention about co-authorship, I think that they are referring to cases which come close to violating rules on plagiarism. If your article is simply republishing their data without further comment, co-authorship might be appropriate. The clause itself seems to be fairly standard "boilerplate". In addition, communicating with the database creator and getting permission to use the data as it exists in the article may go a long way to satisfying the the publishers you are contacting about your article. Nobody likes legal surprises.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/26
| 413
| 1,838
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted my manuscript to a single blind high quality journal. My idea is novel and based on an idea published in their journal. After two weeks, it got desk rejected because the data seems not interested (there is no restriction on the used data by the journal)! I have sent it to another journal and got rejected with many mistakes by the reviewers. Then, I have submitted it to double-blind journal, it got interesting comments, as the idea is excellent but not within the scope of the journal and ask me to follow their comments and submit it to another more relative journal. My paper is accepted now and got published. My question is: is single-blind bais? Do the reviewers judge the paper based on the author index or region?<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer to your question is that there is no way to know whether or to what extent bias was a factor in the rejections.
There is literature on the bias problem, using data on many submissions to many journals, but it would be hard to claim (and document) any single instance.
I'm glad your paper found a home.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: No one can speak for all reviewers, but, at a reputable journal, that shouldn't happen. Single blind reviewing is to prevent pressure put on reviewers by authors, especially those with powerful constituencies.
You don't speak about the "quality" of the various journals, other than the first. There may have been different reasons for rejection. The first, for out of scope has nothing to do with the authors.
The bigger danger in single blind reviewing is when the author is a "friend" of the author. That should be revealed to the editor (by the reviewer) and they should probably decline the review.
Certainly, the system isn't perfect, but mostly it works as intended.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/26
| 753
| 3,316
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a current PhD student in a STEM field who does work in areas that mostly concern social good. That is, my work's outcomes would at first glance mostly help uncover a new societal issue or inform legislation (e.g., consumer protection).
I am considering what different academic paths would look like in this line of work, and I noticed that there are some big tech companies that have decently sized research groups on areas concerning social good. To give a concrete example, Microsoft Research, beyond all their traditional CS academic work, hires researchers to work on fields like sustainability, ecology, mental health, urbanism, etc. As an academic doing this work day-to-day, are you typically working on these areas with a monetary frame of mind (e.g., how it can impact existing products or how it can turn into a new venture)? Or do you just have freedom/funding to work on these topics simply because they are important and good for society? If that's the case, is the motivation for the company to fund this research something akin to corporate social responsibility?<issue_comment>username_1: They are unlikely to be driven by short term economic concerns (next quarter profit statement), but are certainly related to long term, possibly very long term, economic effects.
Many do such things to enhance the corporate reputation, which certainly has monetary value, even if difficult to measure. In recent decades, almost all corporations put value to the shareholder as the topmost value. They need to justify anything that doesn't contribute *in some way* to that value. Not all companies are willing/able to take a long view - sadly. But it does happen.
And some of it is to try to understand the future as well as can be done. Mental health research, for example, can affect their workforce. Ecology can effect what future directions are likely to be viable for the company in the future. Global warming is likely to have a gigantic effect on business in the coming decades. Companies may want to get in to such research, especially when they see too little being done in the public sector.
And yes, some of it is done to influence legislation, but some of that is likely to be propaganda as much as true research. The tobacco companies did a lot of "research" on health. The oil companies did a lot of research on global warming. Mostly they hid contrary results or put an industry positive "spin" on what they learned. So, a bit of caution is suggested at the margins. You need to use your judgement, as always.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the US you might consider exploring nonprofits, the financial accountability and dynamics will be quite different. One might imagine, over time, it becoming more convenient for a large organization to outsource these kinds of activities to a nonprofit organization, perhaps spinning-up and endowing the new organization. My crystal ball is fuzzy, particularly in the future direction, but this seems a plausible path, one worth mulling over.
As far as your question "Or do you just have freedom/funding to work on these topics simply because they are important and good for society?" goes, there are precedents with places like Bell Labs and IBM whose histories are worth exploring.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/07/26
| 392
| 1,727
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose that another author has defined a proposition in a published paper. For the purposes of my own paper, I would like to use that proposition. However, I would have to re-define the proposition (e.g., simple algebraic manipulation). Is it okay for me to call this a proposition in my own work? Or should I cite the previous author's proposition and then describe the algebraic manipulation to get it to the form I want?<issue_comment>username_1: I would say that the best way to do it depends a bit on the amount of manipulation needed. If it is short and obvious (e.g. mostly changing notation), a simple direct citation should suffice, if not you will have to describe it in more detail. But either way, you will have to cite the original author for academic integrity and you should state your version in full, for readability.
Thus I'd go with either something like "**Proposition 1** (adapted from [1, Prop. A])", followed by the the full statement of your version and no proof or alternatively the full statement of your version and a proof of the form "**Proof:** Take [1, Prop. A] and ..." followed by whatever needed to perform the transformation. There is also the rare case where writing down a changed proof is more readable than doing the transformation, in which case I would recommend doing so (but definitely keep the adapted from citation).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Always obey the Golden Rule: Do what is is most helpful for the reader.
Thus, the more pertinent question here: Irrespective of what changes you are making, would it be helpful to your reader to have a citation to another paper telling them about the similar definition?
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/07/26
| 1,792
| 7,764
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m a sociology PhD student in the EU. Back in September, I started teaching a recitation class. My MSc is from another institution (which is also in another country – I moved from Finland to France...) and so I taught the recitation more or less how I was used to from my previous institution (with permission from the professor in charge – I didn’t do anything without consulting her first).
The problem began when I gave the students some bonus questions which could earn some extra points. As the semester ended I discovered how not only most students did not solve the bonus, but that they also expected me to give the extra points regardless (to which I refused).
To keep a long story short, they complained to everyone in our department about it, tarnishing me whenever they could – it even got to the head of department, who rebuffed them. Only that it didn’t end there. In the following semester I worked as a grader in a course with the same students, and they constantly appealed my grades – the reason, as I later learnt, is because a group of them decided to do whatever it takes to get me fired (their words, not mine). These bad
teaching reviews and student complaints already cost me a job next semester. Also, most of these students are likely to still be undergrads in two-years’ time, so I can’t just wait it out until they
graduate.
I have several questions:
1. Is there anything you suggest I can do to get better teaching reviews? At the moment, I have no idea how to do it (and I doubt it’s even possible).
2. Theoretically, I can take a semester off with no teaching.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind skipping it altogether for the rest of my PhD – but I was told that if I’m to continue for a postdoc (let alone a permanent position), positive teaching reviews are a must have. Is it true?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is there anything you suggest I can do to get better teaching reviews? At the moment, I have no idea how to do it (and I doubt it’s even possible).
>
>
>
You have already stated that you know what went wrong initially, and you have described the problem in detail, so obviously yes, there is something you can do to get better reviews in future. Take the thing you described that went wrong in the first instance and reflect on how to make it better; either decide it is already okay and the student complaints were baseless, or change it so that it works better, or remove it from the assessment.
Regarding the follow-up actions of these students to tarnish you and get you fired, assuming your description is accurate, that is an incredibly immature and nasty reaction to a disagreement over assessment, and any halfway decent department would not take their childish tantrum seriously. If your description of the matter is accurate, the fact that you lost a teaching job over it is poor form, and you should consider whether you want to continue in a department that is that craven. (And of course, if your description is incomplete then you should also reflect here; why did a disagreement over assessment grading escalate into a campaign to get you fired? Is there anything you did wrong that you are not including?)
My advice here would be to stay calm, self-reflect objectively on your own teaching work and the problems that arose, and make any required changes. If you are having ongoing trouble with a particular group of students then you should seek teaching work in courses that are not at their year level (e.g., keep teaching the same year level courses after they have moved on to higher level courses).
>
> Theoretically, I can take a semester off with no teaching. Personally, I wouldn’t mind skipping it altogether for the rest of my PhD – but I was told that if I’m to continue for a postdoc (let alone a permanent position), positive teaching reviews are a must have. Is it true?
>
>
>
Teaching experience is useful for any academic position that has a teaching component, but the expectations on fledgling academics are usually not high. Admissions committee members differ in the weight they give to teaching, and the expectations they have in terms of quality, trajectory, etc., so any advice here will be speculative. It is important who told you about the necessity for positive teaching reviews and what basis they have for the claim --- was it some random student who has no idea what they are talking about, or was it the Head of Department telling you the admission requirements (or something in between)?
In regard to your title question, *ceteris paribus*, bad teaching reviews are worse than good teaching reviews, and if you only have bad reviews then that could negatively affect an application for any position with a teaching component, since it shows that you have never had a successful teaching experience. As general advice, I recommend you get back on the horse if you can. Try to get some teaching work in a course that does not include the problematic students, and have another go at refining your teaching. Treat it like you would with any academic skill --- instead of avoidance, get back in the saddle and practice. Many academics will not expect you to get good teaching reviews early in your training, but they *will* expect you to confront problems and work on improving weaknesses.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. You create a **document with all grading and assessment requirements**, deadlines, all tasks (including potential bonus points) before the semester starts.
2. You **discuss said document** in class and **upload/share the document** to the course webpage, Facebook group, etc.
3. **You stick to it.**
---
Note that there will always be groups that dislike you. You cannot do much about it except treat them fairly and avoid them as much as possible (in later semesters).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: For the topline question, yes, it can effect the chances for some, but not all, postdocs. It depends on whether the postdoc is exclusively research focused or broader. For many postdocs, there is no teaching expectation. Moreover, it would be expected that almost all candidates are novices when it comes to teaching.
But, it is very (extremely?) unlikely that your student teaching reviews would be shared with any potential employer. Your teaching might be mentioned in a letter of recommendation if the job had a strong teaching focus. But you have some influence over that.
If you are "hated" by a group of students, but the head is aware of the issue and is supportive of you, then you probably have no issues, though I don't understand why you "lost" a teaching slot.
As to the broader question of getting better reviews, I'd rather suggest that you do a couple of things to improve your teaching. One is to visit the courses/sections of one or more other students or (preferably) experienced faculty and focus on how those courses are run and the interactions with students.
Another is to ask a skilled instructor to visit your class occasionally and give you some informal feedback afterwards. In some places this is actually a formal requirement. But they might notice things that you don't. If you do well in their eyes they might be convinced to write a supportive note to the head.
One last thought is that you discuss the issue (and that group of students) with others in your same circumstances. Perhaps their experience is similar and perhaps they might have some advice.
I was once in a vaguely similar situation, but earned the support of the dean who supported my efforts to improve student learning. The students in question had become a bit lazy through lack of challenge. The dean looked over my shoulder for a bit before giving full support, as is natural.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/07/26
| 727
| 3,346
|
<issue_start>username_0: To maximise discoverability of my manuscript, should I avoid repeating words that occur in the abstract or title in the keywords?
I have a feeling that common academic search engines don't really differentiate between the title/abstract/keywords.
So should I "waste" some of my precious free text keywords for central concepts that are already mentioned a few times throughout the abstract?<issue_comment>username_1: I see no reason that you would eschew a keyword simply because it already appears in the title or abstract. The purpose of keywords is to highlight the topics covered by the paper, for assistance in categorisation and searches. Usually there will be a cross-over between the best keywords and the title/abstract, simply because the latter are likely to mention core topics of the paper.
In regard to your consideration that you might "waste" a keyword that is already in the title or abstract, I think that is unlikely to make any non-negligible difference in the discoverability of your manuscript. Most journals allow a variable number of keywords anyway (though there is sometimes an upper limit) and some search engines might be influenced by the number of times the word appears, so repetition may make it more discoverable, not less. (Note that sometimes you are free to choose your own keywords and sometimes you are restricted to a list of available words, so that might also affect things here.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Working as a patent examiner for nearly a year now, there probably have been multiple instances where I found out about an important patent document from the appearance of a single keyword, usually when someone was noting what terminology they were using and were listing some synonyms. I think it's good to think about which keywords are missing from the title and abstract. If there's no good way to work them into the title or abstract, it seems reasonable to put them in the keywords section. You could also put these keywords in the body somewhere. To elaborate on what I wrote earlier, I've seen synonyms in parenthetical statements in introductory sections like "X (also known as Y)". The latter would make it more clear that a keyword is a synonym and may be preferred for that reason. (To my knowledge, keywords are not given weight beyond the body of the paper in most academic search engines, so it shouldn't make a difference if the keyword appears in the body or keywords.)
Semantic searching does help get around the synonym problem, but for more esoteric topics (like those studied by academics or in the work of a patent examiner), the search engines aren't always aware of the synonyms. It's reasonable to try to help searchers in this.
(It should go without saying that this is not the opinion of the USPTO or US federal government. :-)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Many publishers will actually turn the paper keywords into clickable links on the abstract page on their website. For instance, both SIAM Epubs and IEEEXplore will turn each keyword into a link to start a new search using that keyword as the search term. Words/terms in the title and abstract won't be turned into clickable links, so including the important terms in the keywords as well will benefit the article on the publisher pages.
Upvotes: 0
|