Split (1)

train · 10.4M rows

date stringlengths 10 10	nb_tokens int64 60 629k	text_size int64 234 1.02M	content stringlengths 234 1.02M
2021/08/12	531	2,096	<issue_start>username_0: There were three people working on a paper: a PhD student (S1), her advisor (A), and another PhD student (S2). The advisor A passed away before the paper was finished. At that moment the amount of work done by corresponding parties could be estimated as S1 - 45%, A - 45%, S2 - 10%. Both S1 and S2 graduated and S1 is not interested in finishing the paper and doesn't want S2 to finish it saying that his contribution was not sufficient. S2 wants to finish the paper alone. For the final version, the amount of work done by corresponding parties would be estimated as S1 - 40%, A - 40%, S2 - 20%. Is it appropriate for S2 to submit the paper as he worked on it? If yes, how to deal with authors? S2 thinks that he would put them in order: S1, A, S2, but knows that S1 won't approve the submission.<issue_comment>username_1: First, a paper can't be published without the consent of all authors. Since A can't give consent, their estate must be consulted, perhaps the executor, a spouse or similar. Third, if S2 finishes the paper, their "contribution" probably increases as you note, but it is hard to say by how much. It might not be truly possible to give such an estimate since it isn't time in the saddle that matters. Intellectual contribution is much more important, but harder to measure meaningfully. I won't speak to the order of authorship as it depends too much on the field. But S2 can't publish the paper "on their own". A reputable journal will want confirmation from all authors (and probably a legal representative of A). Sadly, some things need to be abandoned. S2 might be able to take their own ideas into a different paper, carefully avoiding plagiarism. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Under those circumstances? No. The basic rule is that all co-authors need to consent to submitting the paper. Exactly how to handle the case of a deceased co-author can be tricky (there are questions about it on the site), but if the other living co-author explicitly does not consent then there's not much reason to worry about that aspect. Upvotes: 4
2021/08/13	933	4,009	<issue_start>username_0: I am a researcher in the early stage of my career with a few publications. I work on High Energy Physics and published papers in top ranked journals with relatively high h-index. My query is regarding how to promote my research among other researchers working in the same field. I often read various science magazines like Scientific American, New Scientist, Science News, etc. where articles are published that summarize research papers. Naturally, this makes their research stand out from the crowd. I want to know whether our research can be covered by such magazines, too, provided the research is fundamental and important to the community. If this is possible, I would like to know how to approach the editors or science journalists to get our research covered by them.<issue_comment>username_1: There may be better ways to promote your research to other researchers (i.e., ResearchGate, specialty Listservs, Science Twitter, etc.). However, if you want to have articles in popular science magazines, here are a few options that come to mind. * Reach out to writers of those magazine articles and see if they would be interested in writing about your work. However, have an idea in mind on how you'd frame it for the general public. You need a hook. A "so what". In some instances, the writers are freelancers, so they may also have suggestions for alternative magazines. (They often shop articles to multiple magazines.) * You could consider submitting your own article if you find a magazine open to submissions. But again, you need to be able to sell your science. It should have relevance and interest to the general public. Consider co-authoring an article with someone with clout to get it in front of the right people. * Work with your communications office (if you are affiliated with an institution) to send out press releases. * Apply to do a Ted talk. Some universities host these, and others have open calls to audition for an event. Even if you don't make it to the final round of presenting to the live audience, it is still good practice in public speaking and the judges may pass your name and topic off to other friends in the scicomm community that could touch base with you later for articles and the like. * Maintain a social media presence. Documentarians from Plimsoll Productions to Nat Geo monitor Facebook pages and Instagram accounts for their upcoming docuseries. If your work matches what their next show is going to be about, you could get cold-called to be a featured scientists. I've been approached this way for two docuseries and two podcasts. * Finally, give interesting talks with catchy titles at conferences. I've been approached for multiple magazine articles at major conferences that way. Good luck! I hope others weigh in on this too. It's a great question. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Make your journal articles available in easy to digest formats (e.g. video abstracts, web stories, blog entries), and then publicize those. In addition to your organizations communications team, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, etc. are all your friend in getting the word out. I agree with @Angie\_Zorka's suggestions as well, and support following and reaching out to science writers who regularly cover topics related to your research. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Sorry to be a bit of a downer but there must be 1000s if not more people in your situation. It is one of the biggest challenge of any researcher to get their results to “breakout”. Try to get on the seminar circuit. One way is to invite people to where you work so they get to know your stuff, and might invite you back at their place later on, especially if the discussions around the seminar or colloquium was productive. Get involved in APS. This will help with name recognition, and (hopefully) academic recognition will follow. Go to conferences: it shouldn’t be this way but if you don’t promote your own stuff nobody will hear about it. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/13	1,037	4,444	<issue_start>username_0: I am going to apply to the US universities for the fall, 2022 for PhD. I have decided to include the names and research interests of three professors in my SOP with whom I would like to work, if I get admitted to their university. I have tried to contact them but haven't got any response. Therefore, I don't know whether they have any funding to take new graduate students in their labs in the fall, 2022 or not. So, my question is, if I mention their names in my SOP as a prospective student, will it harm my chance of getting admitted or will it be a wise decision to include their names and research interests in my SOP? Thanks in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on the regulation, some Univ. must have confirmation by the advisor, since they offer you the position to work. Others are just a `make sure checklist` that proved you did doing some visiting and conversation with faculty. You might need to contact the office of your department. If this is just a checklist procedure, then it would be fine you can mention whoever's name on the list. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Unless you are in a field where the PI hires doctoral students directly into their lab, you aren't likely to get a response from anyone prior to admission. This is especially true if you are applying with only a bachelors. But, in any case, most universities have a requirement that you pass a set of preliminary/qualifying/comprehensive exams before you get very serious about doctoral research. This is to assure that you have a broad knowledge of your general field and may require some advanced coursework to pass them. Since you haven't gotten a reply, then I'll assume that this is the situation at this university. I don't think that mentioning three professors is necessarily bad, but it isn't really necessary either. If all of them are in a fairly narrow subfield that interests you, it might be enough just to name that subfield. However, don't overly focus your SoP on these people, or spend too many words on this particular thing. You want to convey your future goals and plans both for your studies and thereafter. Some specificity is needed for this so that you don't appear to be unfocused. The advantage of the US system, with admissions handled by committee and advisors chosen rather late, is that you get to meet potential advisors before you make a choice. There is more to consider in choosing an advisor to assure that you find someone who is both compatible and who will also provide the appropriate level of support. You might even be able to take a class with a potential advisor and establish some rapport. If you have to choose only based on their field, it is possible to make a serious mistake. So, naming three is a bit of overkill, but not bad, as long as you use the available space in the SoP to say all that needs to be said. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: The statement of purpose should be a succinct statement for specific reasons why you have chosen the institution. What do you value, specifically, about the University, and how does its resources specifically parallel to your scholarly pursuits. Mentioning professors in this statement in my opinion would not be appropriate. Instead, it is a statement to “sell yourself, to the institution— tell him why you are better than the other applicant to be admitted. What truly exceptional qualities do you possess to be admitted at the institution specifically. When preparing the statement for graduate study, universities are specifically looking for scholars that have the same interests as professors at the University currently has on staff You need the state, why specifically, a specific professor within the department in which you were interested possesses a interest that you wish to pursue scholarly pursuits during your time, and how specifically those pursuits would create significant change or creative findings within that field… that are exceptional. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Assuming you do not want to work with any of the other faculty, there is no downside to identifying the three faculty you want to work with. If you are rejected because those three faculty do not want you, then you saved some time. The advantages of demonstrating that you thought out what you wanted will always outweigh the risk of naming the faculty you want to work with. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/13	664	2,652	<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a paper and want to cite an author's work. I don't know the authors pronouns and while I could go by pictures I find of the author online, I cannot find their pronouns anywhere. I can always write "Author (YEAR) wrote ..." but to mix things up in a whole paragraph I write on author's work, I wanted to use a pronoun. But I don't know which pronoun. (I am not familiar enough with the language of the name either). By now I think it should become common courtesy to indicate single-author's preferred/used pronouns directly on the publication. If the pronoun is not indicated, please tell me how to work around?<issue_comment>username_1: In English, you can always use the (singular) pronoun they when referring to people of unknown/unclear gender. See the following (fictional) example: > > Smith (2014) finds that children under the age of 3 prefer 3-wheeled bicycles. Their research also shows a preference for the color green. > > > Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it would be problematic to require (or even encourage) authors to include preferred pronouns in their papers. Some people would want to leave this ambiguous, for example to avoid any real/perceived bias in the review process, etc. I think you have a few options: 1. Research the author and see if you can find an interview/bio (which are often written in 3rd person) -- you seem to have already done this 2. Ask colleagues in the field if they know, they may have met this person at a conference for example. 3. Use 'they/their' as others have suggested 4. Use 'the author' ( Surname (1992) set out to prove that the world is flat. However, the author was unsuccessful because ... ). 5. Email and ask them. If the gender of the name is ambiguous in English they have probably been misgendered before and would appreciate the attempt to get it right. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This does not directly answer the title question, but instead of using personal pronoun, in many cases you can achieve the desired variation by using terms like "the paper", "the study", and so on (in addition to "the author" that username_2 suggests, which I also find quite common). This might be preferable in itself (not simply as a work around). After all, the subject of discussion is usually the work, not the author, and the "Author (year)" is commonly understood to refer to the work. (For example, the Chicago Manual of Style specifically states that "an author-date citation is a form of bibliographic shorthand that corresponds to a fully cited work; it does not refer to a person.") Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
2021/08/13	2,197	9,169	<issue_start>username_0: I am a university professor, Egypt, and one of my academic research projects five years ago, on which I spent a really long time, was to develop and evaluate an online community and library of freely accessible and quality video content. [The project](https://presentationtube.com) allowed participants to record and share video tutorials and presentations easily. It has received many awards and produced 28,000+ quality videos. Today, thousands of users from around the world use my video platform to create and share videos, particularly during COVID-19 pandemic. My question is: is it morally acceptable to leave and shut down this academic project, since I am very busy, do not have enough resources, and no investor or company is willing to support, fund, acquire or run this project?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't see an ethical issue if you take a few actions to lessen any disruption it might cause. A scheduled exit that is well publicized and not too soon would be good. Offering to let someone else take over responsibility would be good. Making the tools open source, etc. would be good. You might consider passing on the domain to someone interested and who seems trustworthy. An organization would probably be better if it can guarantee stability. I think making it possible for people to retrieve their contributed materials easily would be essential. Perhaps finding an archival site might be needed. But, you won't, in any case, live forever, and unless the project has sustaining funds and an organization behind it, there is likely no guarantee that it can live beyond it's creator. --- A quick perusal seems to suggest that much of the above is already in place, so if it is just one person stepping away from participation there should be no issues at all. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a situation I'm fairly well acquainted with since it is not dissimilar to open source software projects -- which is something I have been doing for more than 20 years :-) It is clear to everyone that people's priorities change over time and that while you may have put a lot of time into leading a project in the past, nobody can expect that you continue to do that indefinitely unless you are paid for it: Life often just intervenes, you may have a new job, a new family, kids, etc. A question to answer for you is whether you actually care about the project's long-term future. If you were the only one who ran the project, then walking away from it will simply ensure that it is dead. If you think that there is little loss in this, then so be it: It's your project, you're free to do with whatever you please. But you may actually have feelings for it that go beyond it just being a "job". Indeed, I read from your description that it has actually led to a lot of good, and it sounds to me like you think it would be a shame to just close it down. In that case, you'd have to find a way to hand it off to someone else. Now, good leadership often includes mentoring people to take over from you. Among my proudest achievements as a founder of two open source software projects is that I feel that I could walk away from these projects and very little would actually change: There are people who I have passed all my information on to and who can (and frequently do) fill all of the roles I have in these communities. If you care about the project, and you haven't mentored others who can take over from you, then now would be the time for that: Identify who could replace you (individuals or, better, a whole group of people), have conversations with them about transitioning, and then teach them what all is involved in running the project. Hopefully you can commit enough time for long enough to bring people into the boat and teach them what they need to know to take over from you. If you manage, the project will survive and your place in its history will be assured. Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Why not make it open source? I'm going to challenge some of your assertions (or possibly misunderstandings) in your comments, which might explain why this is a good thing. > > nobody will pay for the recording tools > > > Sure they won't. But why do you need them to? If you set up an open-source project on GitHub, GitLab, SourceForge or anywhere similar, then you have no hosting costs. At the very most you might want to pay for a domain name redirect. > > or the platform membership > > > The platform is YouTube. Whether people pay for the ad-free version, or use the free version and live with the ads, is up to them. It's not something your tools should even care about. > > The project income helps me to run the project for five years > > > Which is great. But presumably that was paying for hosting and paying for your time. You're stopping development, so you have no time to charge against the project. And you can host an open-source project in any number of different places for free. You simply don't need money. > > my mission is to keep the project for non-profit > > > Which you will do by open-sourcing it. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: * If you're looking to find a source of funding which allows you to continue maintaining the project (at some small % of your time), find a (global) nonprofit technology partner like [TechSoup Global Network](https://www.techsoup.global), and ask them about funding or grants you can apply for. + look also into YouTube (technology) support for nonprofits, google.org or whatever. I can't readily find the right program. Ask their nonprofit community managers. * If you're trying to find someone trustworthy as maintainer so you can hand over all responsibility for the project, then again try the above. Be careful of the open-sourcing route that it doesn't get hijacked by spammers or SEO types, like [The top-ranking HTML editor on Google is(/was) an SEO scam (casparwre.de, 6/2021)](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27427330). It's now well-known that there are organizations who offer $$$ to acquire (closed-source) apps with a good reputation so they can trojan them for malware, spam, contact-harvesting, SEO backlinks etc., then it comes back to bite you a year later. Also, make sure your licensing is watertight to prevent this sort of behavior (like: will your license stipulate that no vendor can ever charge a fee for it? forbid forking and resale without attribution?) * If you go open-source, [Apache Incubator](https://incubator.apache.org/) is a good way to go, and that page has a lot of advice. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Yes, it is morally acceptable. If you were forced to continuously work on something against your will, this would be simple slavery, which itself is clearly immoral. The only other moral way we have to force each other is by signing contracts - and if you had a contract which said that you have to support this project for another X months or years, you would not be concerned about morals, but about ways to prematurely get out of the contract. Of course there are other aspects. Is it healthy for yourself? Is it in accordance with your own personal value system? Will it lead to prosperity and happiness for yourself? Will it be good for your reputation? And so on and so forth - that's where the "meat" of the decision lies, and all of these you can and should decide for yourself. Morals play no role there. N.B.: as pointed out in the comments, this answer does not* suggest to just "leave right now", but addresses the morality of the issue, as this is the title of the question, and the gist of the body, was far as I can tell. I'd suggest to create a secondary question on how to transform an academic open source project into a true community effort with little effort for OP, if required.* Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It's not just morally acceptable, it's inevitable: you will probably not live forever, and so at some point, you will stop contributing to this project. Your only choices are when that is and how well-prepared the project is for that. With that in mind, I'd argue that there's an active ethical obligation to at least plan for the possibility of you leaving. This is quite a common concept in business, known as the "bus test": if you were to be hit by a bus, or are otherwise removed from the project unexpectedly and against your will, that would presumably be at least as disruptive as you quitting in any other way. As the probability of that happening is decidedly more than zero, you should have a plan in place so that the project survives you (since you seem to care about it continuing). What that plan looks like depends on details of the project that I don't know about - maybe you have a collaborator who you could prep to take over if needed, maybe you need to recruit some assistants who you can train up slowly, maybe you can do something else entirely. Whatever it is, though, it will work at least as well (and probably significantly better) for you stepping away gradually in a controlled manner now, rather than rapidly and unexpectedly. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/14	662	2,850	<issue_start>username_0: Machine learning has connected with many other displines or research directions, for example it has been combined with materials, fluid mechanics and so many research directions, so what is your daily life if you have to use machine learning methods to complete your PhD topic or your postdoc research? For example, you can give me a schedule or proportion or your daily life, for example, you have to use half of your workday to decode the ML literatures or algorithms and program, debug, run and test this model, and the other half to do experiments.<issue_comment>username_1: 30% you spend working on a pointless poorly constructed project that the PI conned someone into giving them money for, 30% on classes, 30% on meetings nobody cares about or wants to join in and 10% on something you actually want to study. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I’m a bit puzzled by the negativity of the current answers. From what I know about ML applied to neuroscience (computational neuroscience), and at least some U.S. universities, this isn’t even close to being the case. It is true that you might help reviewing papers as well as work on grants - both your own, and others to help your PI. At this stage of your career though, it won’t make up anywhere near as much time as postulated in other answers; helping your PI with their grants might not happen at all because it's more common for postdocs instead. Assuming you consider an academic career, it’s also useful training as especially grant writing will make up more of your time in later stages. As to classes, if there even are any, they will only happen in your first - possibly second - year. Instead, you rotate through labs at the beginning to help find out what you’d like to do (you’re not necessarily locked into computational work upon entering, and might decide to do experimental work instead). If you work interdisciplinary, it’s important to be good not only on the computational side, but also understand the experimental work and related biology, so, again, in any case it’s time well-spent. When you hit the research stage, if you’re lucky you can hop on a project your adviser has handy for you. If not, you’ll spend some time reading and trying to find your own niche, hopefully working closely with your boss. When the research begins, you’ll cycle through talking to the experimental groups you work with to decide next steps, and setting up models and running them. Running your models will make up the vast majority of your time then. As needed, you research alternative approaches at the side. When it finally comes to writing your paper, you and your co-authors likely iterate through a fair number of rounds to get it done so everyone is happy. If you’re the academic type, it’s a rather fascinating life. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
2021/08/14	860	3,659	<issue_start>username_0: I have a very low undergraduate GPA. I used to play a sport at the state level and thought I could cope up but didn't. Failed in multiple papers, completed a 3-year degree in 5 years. In the end, I had a 2.0 GPA (On the 4.0 scale). However, I got admission at one of the top universities in my country for my master's because the bachelor's GPA wasn't a prerequisite, and having a degree was enough plus I had to give an entrance exam as well as sit for an interview. I got a full 4.0/4.0 GPA in my master's and now am a research intern at one of the top institutes in my country, and have a publication to my name. I also was a research intern in the Research and Development laboratories of 2 companies during the summer and winter. I will be applying this fall to universities abroad, and I wanted to know how much my chances of getting in will be affected before spending money on GRE and university applications.<issue_comment>username_1: This varies by country and even by university, but in general, most people will give your recent work more weight in a decision than earlier work. People grow and change and it is usually recognized. But ultimately, the only way to know for sure is to apply. GRE might help in some places. But a few applications will give you solid information. A wild guess (not a prediction) is that you will be ok. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the US, M.S. degree grades are expected to be high, since masters programs tend to give relatively high grades because people are paying so much to be there. Undergraduate grades are considered more meaningful because not everyone does well. Your undergraduate GPA is going to hurt you, especially at big programs that get a lot of applicants. I worked at a lab at well-known Massachusetts university a few years back, and I helped screen graduate applications for one of the engineering programs. They got so many applications that they would essentially throw out anyone below a relatively high GPA cutoff, so with a 2.0 GPA in that program you would not even be looked at. That is an extreme case because everyone in engineering applied to that particular school and they couldn't go through it all. In other places, there are fewer applicants and people have time to more carefully review applicants, in which case having a publication and a lot of additional training looks very good. There are plenty of less famous programs in the US that get fewer applicants and would more holistically evaluate someone with good recommendations, research experience and a publication. I would put together a list of a few programs you're interested in that are not MIT/Harvard/Stanford/etc. Look for ones with research you would be interested in. Reach out to a few professors you would want to work with, briefly state that you've published and are interested in applying to their program, and you want to know if you'd have a chance. 'I've published in X, I'm interested in Y, I have a M.S degree in Z but I did poorly in undergrad for personal reasons. Am I wasting both of our time applying here'. If you're not spamming everyone but actually emailing people interested in what you do you'll probably get a few answers. It is in their interest to answer since if you're not qualified and you apply they have to read through what you send in anyway. See what they say and reevaluate. GRE has become dramatically less popular in the US, especially in sciences/engineering/math where everyone does well in math. Depending on your field, you may not even need it at a lot of schools. Double check that before you take it. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/15	2,399	10,391	<issue_start>username_0: I’m one year into my PhD program, and I recently drafted my first review article. I’m a native English speaker, and was often applauded for my writing during high school and college. My advisor made mean comments during a group meeting, discussing that my writing is too bad to be published. My Advisor is from Northern Europe and is bad at grammar. I admitted that my academic writing wasn’t top notch and promised to improve. I was never ridiculed in front of people, and I feel it as an insult. I’m looking for ways to improve and finding some comfort! Geography definitely plays a role. My M.S advisor is an Indian, and I had a lot of publications with minimal révisons.<issue_comment>username_1: “Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem.” --- <NAME>, Psychiatrist. Your supervisor's comment sounds like a rather curt observation to me; while it is perhaps somewhat abrupt, in the context of evaluating and instructing a student (and with the limited information you have given about the incident) I would not classify it as rude. In any case, if there are cultural differences between you and your supervisor, that is all the more reason to grant some leeway if you find that your supervisor's assessments of your work are excessively blunt. (Obviously there are cultural differences across countries in terms of the bluntness with which such an observation would be delivered, so if you think this is a factor, make an allowance for it.) Ultimately, if improvement in your discipline comes at the expense of occasional hurt feelings, you will find that that is a worthwhile trade-off in the long-term. Much of the information you give surrounding this matter suggests that you may be proceeding under some misapprehensions about the standards of a PhD candidature and the appropriate scope of instruction from supervisors. For example, the fact that you were considered to be a good writer at high school/college level does not mean that you write well enough to be published in a scholarly journal. This is not unusual for early PhD candidates, and it is generally reasonable in the context of a PhD candidature that a supervisor would openly state this to you, even in the presence of other students/academics in a meeting. Since you are only one year into your candidature, you are probably not expected to be producing publishable work yet, but you ought to be working on any skills you need to do this. It sounds like you are already working on ways to improve your work, so that is what you need to be doing. Once you have submitted a paper for publication you will have the benefit of referee feedback, and this will give you another opinion on the quality of your writing. Being under academic supervision necessarily entails regular scrutiny and judgment of the quality of your work. Unless your situation involves repeated instances of unreasonable criticisms (and I see no evidence of that from your post) I recommend that you take this one on the chin and just work on improving your own work. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say that the first step is to work out whether what your advisor said is a mean comment, or is it constructive criticism. In this case I'd say what your advisor is saying falls more under constructive criticism than mean comments. A key thing to keep in mind is that academic writing is a very different thing to any other kinds of writing you've done. You're trying to very clearly explain a very complex idea to someone else using only written works (and probably some figures/equations). In high school the value of your writing may have been more in its creativity than its clarity. In collage you probably weren't writing too many essays, and when you wrote long prose its goal was to demonstrate understanding of ideas to people who understood those ideas better than you (based on your username I'm guessing chemistry major). Regarding improvements, one text I would recommend for academic writing is: "the sense of style" by <NAME>. This author tries to explain rules rather than just giving you a list of rules to follow. In fact, they argue against a number of commonly believed grammatical rules that aren't followed by the best writers (including sometimes those who advocate for them) and your advisor ignoring them might be part of the reason you believe them to be bad at grammar. *The following is specifically for the original poster and probably doesn't generalise to other cases (it's also probably more of a comment but is much to long for that):* Furthermore, based on your question (which I replicated below), I'd lean towards your advisor being a better writer. While its possible your writing is normally better, issues that I can see in a hastily written question are probably similar to issues that keep reappearing in a complicated review paper that you have written. And therefore have probably led your advisor to their conclusion regarding your writing ability. > > Title: How to deal with a PhD advisor who makes mean comments? > > > First one is that you've coded your question in a way that its informal and implies that we are your friends or family from whom you're hoping to receive sympathy. This is mainly because "mean comments" suggests a younger age than I expect you actually are. You should probably have coded your question to a professional audience by using a more 'adult'/professional sounding version of mean comments, e.g. "How to deal with comments from my advisor that I feel to be overly mean?" or "How to deal with criticism from my advisor that I feel is unwarranted?". > > I’m one year into my PhD program, and I recently drafted my first review article. I’m a native English speaker, and was often applauded for my writing during high school and college. My advisor made mean comments during a group meeting, discussing that my writing is too bad to be published. My Advisor is from Northern Europe and is bad at grammar. I admitted that my academic writing wasn’t top notch and promised to improve. I was never ridiculed in front of people, and I feel it as an insult. I’m looking for ways to improve and finding some comfort! Geography definitely plays a role. My M.S advisor is an Indian, and I had a lot of publications with minimal révisons. > > > On my first read through this I felt like something was wrong but I couldn't put my finger on it, but on a second read through I could find a couple of issues which would probably impact your academic writing. The first was "révisons" instead of "revisions", I googled your word and I could only find guides to French so I'm guessing you know French as well? The second was that your sentences lack connectors between them, leaving the idea of each of your sentences floating disconnected from one another. This means I need to provide the connections, fine for simple ideas or ideas I know well, but for new and complex ideas not so much. Here you're pushing the workload onto me to essentially re-perform your research project, rather than accepting the workload to clearly explain it to me through your writing. For example your second and third sentences might be more elegant if you wrote: " I’m a native English speaker, and was often applauded for my writing during high school and college, though my advisor was critical of me during a group meeting. Specifically by stating that my writing is too bad to be published." Here I've joined the two new sentences by using a connector 'specifically' so I know that the second sentence above is specifying something from the first sentence (what the advisor was critical of). Third, you seem to be confusing how to use a few words, for example "discussing" isn't right unless they were discussing your bad writing with you (in which case you need to make clear who they were discussing with). And when you say "Geography definitely plays a role" is suspect you mean "Culture/Background definitely plays a role" since the geography of where they work/have worked isn't influencing their language ability. But their background/culture, which you've mentioned and linked to this sentence, does play a role. Though as a side note to my second comment, the relation of this sentence with the previous sentence is unclear. Fourth, You seem to switch tenses within a sentence, e.g. "I was never ridiculed in front of people, and I feel it as an insult." switches from past tense to present tense. Fifth, the sentence "I’m looking for ways to improve and finding some comfort!" is confused. You seem to be saying: I'm - (1) looking for ways to improve, (2) finding some comfort. Instead I think you wanted to say: I'm looking for - (1) ways to improve, (2) some comfort from others. A number of these things are mentioned in the Steven Pinker book I suggested above which might explain what is wrong better than I have here (and probably give some words you can google for even more info). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It is not acceptable to be subjected to derogatory comments in any circumstances. You can expect robust criticism during your individual one-on-one meetings with your supervisor, but these should never be delivered with the aim of damaging your sense of worth. Cultural differences certainly can play a part in challenges faced by supervisor and student, but that should never be used to excuse poor behavior. Who else is on your supervision team? Can you approach them for advice? You are in your first year. Do you have a preliminary first year review with your Department/Faculty where you can raise these issues and seek advice? Do you have a PhD student representative who reports to Department/Faculty? Can you talk to them? Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: What each person finds mean or not is very subjective and depends a lot in their personal context. It also seems like a big part of the problem is that the criticism was made in public, since you don't mention any specific derogatory or offensive language. I would approach them in private and ask them politely to discuss this kind of concerns and criticisms with you in private in the future. If they were downright offensive I would also mention it during the meeting ("I felt/think/etc. this way because" instead of "you are/were"). Upvotes: 0
2021/08/15	1,985	8,294	<issue_start>username_0: I am facing an inconvenient situation that I will try to explain as well as I can. Here is my case: One and a half years ago, I submitted my paper to Journal A. The reviewing process started and I managed to convince three out of four reviewers. All of the reviewers asked the editor to accept my submission. The last reviewer asked me to include an unusual comparison method. I refused to add the non-standard method and the reviewer ask the editor to reject my paper which he did immediately. Being shocked, I wrote an email to the editor asking him to give me a chance to correct the misunderstanding. Not receiving an answer to my email, I decided to submit my paper to Journal B. After a while, the editor of Journal A sent me an email telling me that he has decided to give me another chance. Now, I am facing an unintentional double submission situation. My paper is "With the editor" on Journal B and hasn't yet been sent to the reviewers. Considering that I spent so much time convincing the reviewers of Journal A, I don't want to miss the opportunity of revising my paper in Journal A. Yet, I don't want to mess things up with Journal B because they are a very reputable journal, and I want to work with them in the future. Now, I want to ask Journal B to freeze my submission to prevent from double submission problem. My problem is that I don't know whether they will understand me or not. * How would you recommend that I write an email to them? * Is this kind of situation normal? * Will they black-list me? * Will they understand me if I write them honestly? * Will I lose my chance of submitting other papers to any of the Journals? Both Journals are very reputable journals and I don't want to get into any problems with any of them.<issue_comment>username_1: Write to journal B and say you are withdrawing. You don't have to give reasons, although you could say the submission was premature if you want to. That's all there is to it. Nothing much is likely to happen with the second journal, since it's fairly common for manuscripts to be withdrawn. Furthermore the status is "with editor", which means they've done almost nothing to the manuscript yet. Edit: I would not suggest telling journal B that your paper has been rejected by journal A. [See](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118541/submitting-a-paper-to-a-new-journal-with-responses-for-the-rejection-to-the-firs/118546#118546): > > [What'd you actually highlight would be]: Your paper has been rejected by another journal before (not a good sign; think of it as "if we publish it now, we're actually publishing another journal's rejects, and we're supposed to be a good journal!!") > > > Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: If you really want to stick with journal A, simply say: > > Dear Editor B, > > > Please withdraw my paper "papername" from consideration. I am sorry for the inconvenience. I am making this request because the editor of another journal has changed their mind. > > > Do not tell B who A is. Do not resubmit to A until B has confirmed withdrawal. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd like to make a point that the other answers aren't touching upon. You're in a situation, a double submission, that some could interpret as an ethical lapse. Clearly, this was not your intention, and you thought your paper was no longer encumbered by the first journal. You need to approach this from the perspective of "If this blows up, I may need to be able to show a communication trail to my Dean that clearly shows my trying to resolve the screwup, regardless of the cause of the screwup". The safest way is to assume that down the line, your Dean may be reading every one of your communications on the matter, and thus your communications must put all temptation to investigate further to rest. You need to be clear and unambiguous. I'd try "Dear Editor B. I submitted the paper to you after receiving communication from Editor A that my submission was no longer under consideration. After that communication was received, I received a message that Editor A revived my review, thus this paper is currently under review by two journals simultaneously. I'm somewhat embarrassed by the situation, and I apologize for the inconvenience, but I would like to withdraw my paper from consideration, and might resubmit it later pending the outcome of my other review." Collect ALL your communications about this paper to date, along with any response you may receive, and save them. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I think the best is somewhere between the suggestions by username_2 and username_3. Namely, just write to the editor of B and state only the bare facts that are necessary for the editor to know: > > Dear Editor, I had submitted paper X to you after receiving a rejection from another journal. However, some time later, they sent me another email saying that they might reconsider their rejection. Due to that, I can no longer proceed with my submission to your journal, and would have to withdraw it. Thank you. > > > I do not think you should be embarrassed for something you did not do wrong, and it is very important to state that the first journal rejected your submission before you submitted to the second journal. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: This is a tough situation, the cause of which is mostly the poor behavior by Journal A. I say "mostly" because of the following point: > > Not receiving an answer to my email, I decided to submit my paper to Journal B. After a while, the editor of Journal A sent me an email telling me that he has decided to give me another chance. > > > It is well known that journals can take a long time to respond to authors' queries (what often seems like -- and probably often is -- too long). To have a conversation like this with an editor, in my experience one must be willing for it to take up to a couple of months. Do you as the author have to wait that long just to continue the conversation? No: you can end it at any time by informing the editor that time constraints have forced you to move on to another journal. In this case you left your query with Journal A open while submitting to Journal B. Is this a double submission? No, because the status of your paper with Journal A is "rejected." But it does leave the door open for something like this to happen down the road. You probably should have expected to hear something back from the editor eventually; in my experience, that has usually been the case. Again though, the primary culprit here is Journal A, who seems to be behaving badly: spending a long time processing your paper, rejecting because of a suggestion made by one referee was not followed, while three other referees recommended publication, and then not addressing your concern about this in a timely manner. I think it is ethical to withdraw from Journal B and resubmit to Journal A. This would be ethical independent of the timing, but because you only submitted to Journal B on Friday -- c'mon, they have not done anything much with your paper since then. I don't think you need to say anything about why you are withdrawing the paper, and I don't think they will ask or care. I think though that the situation where you withdraw from a second journal to revive business with the first journal is a suboptimal one, to be avoided if possible. I mentioned above what you could have done to avoid this situation and should (I suggest) do next time. I did want to put just one word in for staying with Journal B. I don't know the particulars of your situation: the relative merits of the two journals, how much time you're likely to lose by starting over with your particular paper, and so forth, so staying with Journal A may well be the best decision for you. But again, they've behaved badly. On the one hand, everything else being equal it is best not to reward those who have behaved badly. On the other hand, maybe they will continue to behave badly: it could be that after six months, Journal A decides to re-reject your paper because of the same critique by the same referee, right? You have to decide how likely that is to happen and how you will feel if it does happen. Good luck. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/15	359	1,560	<issue_start>username_0: I have accepted a postdoc offer, then an other offer came out and I declined it mostly because I already accepted the first one. After taking time to think and consider multiple factors I have some regrets. Is it normal to ask if that position has been filled yet and if not is it okay to take it?<issue_comment>username_1: Reget is common in our life; I would suggest discussing with the Professor again if it's not filled he/she might offer you. If they don't offer, you will not regret in future that you did not ask. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Proceed with caution here. Regret is common and, as we say "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". I can't really recommend one way or the other, since it is both your decision and you who will benefit or suffer from any decision you make. But I suggest you consider the following. You leave yourself at risk of seeming unreliable to both institutions if you try to make a change after you have accepted an offer. That wouldn't serve you well if it were to occur. Personally, I would only be tempted to try to switch if there were something decidedly negative about the accepted offer/position. I would be more inclined to write the second institution, thanking them, telling them that you just recently accepted another offer before this one was made and that perhaps the future will offer possibilities for joining them. But, consider that there might be risk in trying for a short term optimization here. Think about the longer term. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/15	4,008	16,249	<issue_start>username_0: My advisor is a decent person. She is helpful and supportive. She has continued to support me throughout financially. However, she advices me that I should have offers before submitting my thesis and defending it. It has been over 6.5 years of PhD. I have 4 journal papers in okayish journals (Journal of thermal spray technology and surface and coatings technology). My research is on modeling a coating process. [Here's](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11666-021-01224-9) a paper with similar work as mine. Now, I can publish many more papers and it is easy to publish in my research area. But, I cannot get a postdoc or industry position, no matter how hard I try. I have applied to so many places, and have received no response. I don't know what I will do after graduating. My advisor says that I should get a job before graduating and I should keep searching. However, she doesn't have any contacts that she can provide me as she is not well-known in the research area. I am really clueless what to do considering I am getting no response. My work is purely simulations and I was not involved in developing any open source software. All the postdoc positions require experimental experience or high-level programming skills and vast simulation knowledge. I have none. In this way, I don't see any end to my PhD. I would be unemployable anyways. I made a mistake with this research field. I shouldn't have done a PhD. I can't be an academic this way. Nor any industry is ready to hire me. Should I leave my PhD? I don't know if that will be of any help.<issue_comment>username_1: The way you describe your situation, your adviser's refusal to graduate you is her attempt to protect you. Once you're graduated, you have to move on. The only alternative for her to keep you around would be to offer you a postdoc with her, which she might have reasoned originally to worsen your situation (it's rarely ideal to stick around after your Ph.D.); maybe there were administrative hurdles or financial problems as well. Repeated failures to find employment have now extended the situation to a non-sustainable point. This is to say, do not just quit your Ph.D. It is very likely that your adviser will be happy to let you defend your work and obtain your Ph.D. with her. The bigger issue is what to do after, which is hard to opine on. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Since [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/173450/75368) left a few things unsaid, let me try to complement it a bit. If you quit, what will you have? That "feels" like the worst option of all. Times are bad, not just for you. Jobs are hard to find in academia. I don't know whether they are in industry in your field or not. People who do get postdocs seem to get on a postdoc-treadmill that is hard to get off of. Not ideal. This was true before the pandemic as well. The time it takes to get your degree is irrelevant. I took seven beyond the BA. No one cared about that, only about what I could offer then. In fact, research can't be scheduled unless it is trivial. You seem to be doing the right thing (writing papers...). Don't let external factors bleed in to your self conception. As username_1 mentions, the supervisor seems to be offering you some space/time. Take advantage of that. Some universities will put a time limit on study so be aware of that, of course. But I suggest that you use some of that time to develop the skills that you say you lack. Software? Experimental? Something that will add more than just another paper to your CV. Something different in kind. Note that you aren't tied to your current research field for life, but it requires some form of a secure position to enable a change. But change is possible. --- I graduated in similarly difficult times. I wound up in a position so low on the academic ranking charts as to be invisible. None of my peers did much better initially. But I was able to build a career and move upwards, though not into the stratosphere. Life was good. Met a lot of smart people, had some fun. I was lucky to stay in academia at all, but I gave myself no options. If you have to start out on a similar path, keep your contacts fresh as much as you can and keep your eyes open for opportunities as the situation improves. I ended up highly respected in my field, but it took time and effort. My Dean was very upset when she learned I was putting in for retirement. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Why do you want to graduate so much? Sure, it's nice to "graduate", but after graduating you'll have to do something else, and as you wrote you "don't know what I will do after graduating". You further write that you "would be unemployable anyways". Under these circumstances, assuming you are paid a stipend as a PhD student, if you graduate you will have no income. Given the above, *if you leave your PhD you will have no income, and* you will have no PhD. That's obviously even worse than having no income. What you should do now is find a job. You are probably more employable than you think you are, but you need to identify what you can do. For example you write that your work is purely simulations, which presumably means you have some idea how to write code. Which is good, because there are lots of jobs that require coding skills. It's up to you to find these jobs and apply for them. Make use of your university's career services center, if they have one. See e.g. [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109293/unsuccessful-job-search-with-an-ms-in-math-degree) for more about job searches. You might want to talk to former classmates who have found jobs as well, see what they did. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: > > All the postdoc positions require experimental experience or > high-level programming skills and vast simulation knowledge. I have > none. In this way, I don't see any end to my PhD. I would be > unemployable anyways. > > > Why not start learning programming (eg. Python on online courses) and applying this to small tasks within your PhD like automating scripts etc.? Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Let me pick up one line from the end of your post: > > I made a mistake with this research field. I shouldn't have done a PhD. I can't be an academic this way. Nor any industry is ready to hire me > > > NO** Now granted, ideally you get an undergraduate degree, specialize a bit towards then end. Start more independent work in a masters to then join an established research group to do some great PhD work. While this route is still available in some places, it has become rarer... If you are in the UK (and you are not as there is a hard 4 year limit for submission at the universities I know), you can start a PhD after a Bachelor's degree (with a Firsts or 2.1) and potentially get thrown into a "random" topic... - I came from maths and ended up dealing with fuel autoxidation chemistry. Another guy in our group was a professional programmer and then did experimental coal combustion... Go figure. Now one can sink into an endless debate over whether this is good or bad and what needs to change, but this is neither the time nor the place. What is however a reality is, that you will most likely specialize in a niche subject: fuel autoxidation? Not many people work in that field... Theoretical chemistry? Not that well funded either. A colleague got me a post doc which lead to another post doc after which I ended up joining a consulting company that is more IT based (though as part of a group doing numerical simulations). Most people do not get to stay in their field - and with the diploma mills in the UK (yes, that is what a UK university is...) we have way more PhD holders than we could offer jobs too. Incidentally, after both of my post docs I had a similar problem: I was asking "what the hell can I do and where do I go?". At times I wished I lived in the 19th century where nobility entertained generalist scientists who had the freedom to explore a domain of their choosing... At the same time, I ended up where I ended up and as of writing this right now I'm overall rather happy with my job. But to each their own. Incidentally, you are in a much better position than me: I published the first journal article during my first post doc. Now coming back to your area of expertise: You mention that your publications are in a journal focusing on spray technology and surface coatings. You won't possibly do 100% the same as you did in your PhD, but any (high tech) industry that deals with paint may be interested. Aircraft, boats, cars, but also paint and equipment manufacturers. Optimizing paint use, tweaking nozzle design. Then we have coatings, again manufacturers and users. When I started my PhD, a fellow PhD student had carried out a CFD simulation of an aerosol dispersion device for a masters degree (if I remember correctly). Research into spray can also come into play in the medical field. You will just need to be a bit creative - and realize that most people don't get their "dream job". - And you may discover some other very interesting field too. If you truly have no idea where you are going and are "only looking for a job" at the moment, try any of the big engineering consulting companies. (Though satisfaction and pay will vary between them.) Incidentally, I see the consulting field as a mixed blessing: You get to explore new fields and contribute your experience to a variety of applications. At the same time, it can be tiring/frustrating at times, basically when you need to "get into a new field". Then again, other people specialize in A and do A. Now I know that this is easy to write and finding a position can be hard (don't ask me how often I was ignored...) but as it stands, there is nothing else but to try. Now if you still have a decent amount of funding left to spend on continuing a PhD, great - it takes the stress of your back. Apply for jobs, write the thesis and keep growing it while you search for a job. When you get the offer, schedule the defense and "pick up" the degree. As a side note: You are more likely to develop tools in academia. In industry, you will typically use tools. (Though again, it depends.) I would not worry that much about your lack of programming experience. Add to that, the theoreticians benefit from people bringing practical experience along too. - And if you find it interesting, you can learn programming, even "on the job", you might even get paid to do it. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I went to a low rank state school for my undergrad and phd (high energy physics simulation). I have never published a paper. Then I got a postdoc in a top 15 university in continuum mechanics simulation. Now I have a high paying job building robot prototypes in industry which I love. The point is that if you are willing to be open about what you do for a living (and willing to learn), your phd will carry you a long way towards happiness. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: In the U.S. there are frankly typically two reasons to intentionally delay graduation. 1) Wishing to extend student visa 2) Student loan situations. If either of these apply, I'd take your advisor's advice and not graduate. My own intuition if otherwise is to just defend the thesis, graduate, and try to find a post-doc. However, there are many situations where you might not find an academic job, so how you would deal with earning a living then would be up to you. Personal note: I wound up re-meeting the person I would marry in such a situation, so it can work out, but needless to say results are highly variable. One word of caution: Academic jobs are easier to get if you have one in sync with your graduation. The interviews don't always like seeing industrial experience (or non-academic job experience), hence a delay may be beneficial. However, you would still have to explain the long time it took, so you have a difficult decision either way. Best wishes whatever you decide. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: From your description, I can't tell the status of your project, or what's holding you up. Are you actually ready to finish up and defend, regardless of your job search status? Your mentor has a point about having a job to go to before you leave. That said, there is nobody responsible for finding you a job other than you. Work with your school's career center, headhunters, job search sites, .... You're probably a good deal more employable than you think you are, but you're probably not going to find a job until you start looking for one. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: In the United States, the average time to get a PhD is increasing. It can be easily 6-8 years. It took me eight years to get my PhD. When I graduated, I had a hard time finding any job. Eventually, I found a postdoc position with a relatively low pay, because I had the specific experience they needed and because I already met the future boss when doing experimental shifts. One year later, I started getting around a 50% human response rate to my applications, and finding a job became much easier. Another year later, potential employers started actually initiating contact. It is quite normal for a PhD to take 6.5+ years, and also while you are probably correct about your current job prospects, this can change quicker than you think. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: From how I interpret your question and a couple of comments you dropped, it indeed seems like your advisor is trying her best to support you in the best way possible. This is good, because it should allow you to discuss more openly with her when there is need – and there may be need right now. I do not know which country you are in but I see a problem with your job hunting strategy. If I were a recruiter and saw a CV that has spent a long time in a Ph.D. position (6.5 years is nowadays considered long in my country although it used to be closer to average), I would wonder what is keeping the candidate from finishing. Insufficient planning? Inability to adjust one's strategy? Are they just bad? Of course, you could (and probably do) address that in your cover letter, probably by writing something along the lines of 'I intend to submit and defend my thesis rapidly before joining your company' – but does that help much? In this country, the time between submission and defence can be months (I submitted around December and defended in May) and a recruiter or a company are probably not willing to wait that long. To combat this, I would suggest taking the next half-step already, write up your thesis and submit it. Expect it to take quite some time until your defence – but now you can apply for jobs stating that only your defence is still required for your graduation which puts your entire story into a completely different light. Nonetheless, be prepared to explain why your Ph.D. took as long as it did, but make sure the explanation is relevant to the project or research; not saying that you were delaying in hopes of finding a job. In addition, job searchers are commonly advised to apply for positions even if they do not fulfill all the qualifications specified in the job posting. The company may be interested in the qualifications you already have and perfectly willing to invest in you by teaching you the ones you are missing on the job. Personally, I cannot confirm whether this is true because I did not make it to enough interviews to test the hypothesis and I was often rejected off the bat although I ticked off every single requirement on the job posting. Nonetheless, it is surely worth trying. Having said all that, I am going to loop right back to my first paragraph: I think it is time to have a strategy meeting with your supervisor very soon, to discuss the viability of the strategy I have outlined or whether maybe she can provide you with a short-term (3 or 6 months, maybe?) 'gap-filling' postdoc position to allow you to job hunt more effectively with a graduation in hand. Everything I said may or may not apply to the country you are working in. It applies to my country but each place is different. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/15	3,692	15,032	<issue_start>username_0: I got a postdoc job offer from a UK university. The job offer only contains the payment scale, which is grade 7, and an annual leave of 25 days, work hours. Nothing about notice to leave or sick leaves or anything. What should I do? in the job description, they say that I would do anything that commensurate with the grade of the job. What does this mean?<issue_comment>username_1: The way you describe your situation, your adviser's refusal to graduate you is her attempt to protect you. Once you're graduated, you have to move on. The only alternative for her to keep you around would be to offer you a postdoc with her, which she might have reasoned originally to worsen your situation (it's rarely ideal to stick around after your Ph.D.); maybe there were administrative hurdles or financial problems as well. Repeated failures to find employment have now extended the situation to a non-sustainable point. This is to say, do not just quit your Ph.D. It is very likely that your adviser will be happy to let you defend your work and obtain your Ph.D. with her. The bigger issue is what to do after, which is hard to opine on. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Since [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/173450/75368) left a few things unsaid, let me try to complement it a bit. If you quit, what will you have? That "feels" like the worst option of all. Times are bad, not just for you. Jobs are hard to find in academia. I don't know whether they are in industry in your field or not. People who do get postdocs seem to get on a postdoc-treadmill that is hard to get off of. Not ideal. This was true before the pandemic as well. The time it takes to get your degree is irrelevant. I took seven beyond the BA. No one cared about that, only about what I could offer then. In fact, research can't be scheduled unless it is trivial. You seem to be doing the right thing (writing papers...). Don't let external factors bleed in to your self conception. As username_1 mentions, the supervisor seems to be offering you some space/time. Take advantage of that. Some universities will put a time limit on study so be aware of that, of course. But I suggest that you use some of that time to develop the skills that you say you lack. Software? Experimental? Something that will add more than just another paper to your CV. Something different in kind. Note that you aren't tied to your current research field for life, but it requires some form of a secure position to enable a change. But change is possible. --- I graduated in similarly difficult times. I wound up in a position so low on the academic ranking charts as to be invisible. None of my peers did much better initially. But I was able to build a career and move upwards, though not into the stratosphere. Life was good. Met a lot of smart people, had some fun. I was lucky to stay in academia at all, but I gave myself no options. If you have to start out on a similar path, keep your contacts fresh as much as you can and keep your eyes open for opportunities as the situation improves. I ended up highly respected in my field, but it took time and effort. My Dean was very upset when she learned I was putting in for retirement. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Why do you want to graduate so much? Sure, it's nice to "graduate", but after graduating you'll have to do something else, and as you wrote you "don't know what I will do after graduating". You further write that you "would be unemployable anyways". Under these circumstances, assuming you are paid a stipend as a PhD student, if you graduate you will have no income. Given the above, *if you leave your PhD you will have no income, and* you will have no PhD. That's obviously even worse than having no income. What you should do now is find a job. You are probably more employable than you think you are, but you need to identify what you can do. For example you write that your work is purely simulations, which presumably means you have some idea how to write code. Which is good, because there are lots of jobs that require coding skills. It's up to you to find these jobs and apply for them. Make use of your university's career services center, if they have one. See e.g. [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109293/unsuccessful-job-search-with-an-ms-in-math-degree) for more about job searches. You might want to talk to former classmates who have found jobs as well, see what they did. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: > > All the postdoc positions require experimental experience or > high-level programming skills and vast simulation knowledge. I have > none. In this way, I don't see any end to my PhD. I would be > unemployable anyways. > > > Why not start learning programming (eg. Python on online courses) and applying this to small tasks within your PhD like automating scripts etc.? Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Let me pick up one line from the end of your post: > > I made a mistake with this research field. I shouldn't have done a PhD. I can't be an academic this way. Nor any industry is ready to hire me > > > NO** Now granted, ideally you get an undergraduate degree, specialize a bit towards then end. Start more independent work in a masters to then join an established research group to do some great PhD work. While this route is still available in some places, it has become rarer... If you are in the UK (and you are not as there is a hard 4 year limit for submission at the universities I know), you can start a PhD after a Bachelor's degree (with a Firsts or 2.1) and potentially get thrown into a "random" topic... - I came from maths and ended up dealing with fuel autoxidation chemistry. Another guy in our group was a professional programmer and then did experimental coal combustion... Go figure. Now one can sink into an endless debate over whether this is good or bad and what needs to change, but this is neither the time nor the place. What is however a reality is, that you will most likely specialize in a niche subject: fuel autoxidation? Not many people work in that field... Theoretical chemistry? Not that well funded either. A colleague got me a post doc which lead to another post doc after which I ended up joining a consulting company that is more IT based (though as part of a group doing numerical simulations). Most people do not get to stay in their field - and with the diploma mills in the UK (yes, that is what a UK university is...) we have way more PhD holders than we could offer jobs too. Incidentally, after both of my post docs I had a similar problem: I was asking "what the hell can I do and where do I go?". At times I wished I lived in the 19th century where nobility entertained generalist scientists who had the freedom to explore a domain of their choosing... At the same time, I ended up where I ended up and as of writing this right now I'm overall rather happy with my job. But to each their own. Incidentally, you are in a much better position than me: I published the first journal article during my first post doc. Now coming back to your area of expertise: You mention that your publications are in a journal focusing on spray technology and surface coatings. You won't possibly do 100% the same as you did in your PhD, but any (high tech) industry that deals with paint may be interested. Aircraft, boats, cars, but also paint and equipment manufacturers. Optimizing paint use, tweaking nozzle design. Then we have coatings, again manufacturers and users. When I started my PhD, a fellow PhD student had carried out a CFD simulation of an aerosol dispersion device for a masters degree (if I remember correctly). Research into spray can also come into play in the medical field. You will just need to be a bit creative - and realize that most people don't get their "dream job". - And you may discover some other very interesting field too. If you truly have no idea where you are going and are "only looking for a job" at the moment, try any of the big engineering consulting companies. (Though satisfaction and pay will vary between them.) Incidentally, I see the consulting field as a mixed blessing: You get to explore new fields and contribute your experience to a variety of applications. At the same time, it can be tiring/frustrating at times, basically when you need to "get into a new field". Then again, other people specialize in A and do A. Now I know that this is easy to write and finding a position can be hard (don't ask me how often I was ignored...) but as it stands, there is nothing else but to try. Now if you still have a decent amount of funding left to spend on continuing a PhD, great - it takes the stress of your back. Apply for jobs, write the thesis and keep growing it while you search for a job. When you get the offer, schedule the defense and "pick up" the degree. As a side note: You are more likely to develop tools in academia. In industry, you will typically use tools. (Though again, it depends.) I would not worry that much about your lack of programming experience. Add to that, the theoreticians benefit from people bringing practical experience along too. - And if you find it interesting, you can learn programming, even "on the job", you might even get paid to do it. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I went to a low rank state school for my undergrad and phd (high energy physics simulation). I have never published a paper. Then I got a postdoc in a top 15 university in continuum mechanics simulation. Now I have a high paying job building robot prototypes in industry which I love. The point is that if you are willing to be open about what you do for a living (and willing to learn), your phd will carry you a long way towards happiness. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: In the U.S. there are frankly typically two reasons to intentionally delay graduation. 1) Wishing to extend student visa 2) Student loan situations. If either of these apply, I'd take your advisor's advice and not graduate. My own intuition if otherwise is to just defend the thesis, graduate, and try to find a post-doc. However, there are many situations where you might not find an academic job, so how you would deal with earning a living then would be up to you. Personal note: I wound up re-meeting the person I would marry in such a situation, so it can work out, but needless to say results are highly variable. One word of caution: Academic jobs are easier to get if you have one in sync with your graduation. The interviews don't always like seeing industrial experience (or non-academic job experience), hence a delay may be beneficial. However, you would still have to explain the long time it took, so you have a difficult decision either way. Best wishes whatever you decide. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: From your description, I can't tell the status of your project, or what's holding you up. Are you actually ready to finish up and defend, regardless of your job search status? Your mentor has a point about having a job to go to before you leave. That said, there is nobody responsible for finding you a job other than you. Work with your school's career center, headhunters, job search sites, .... You're probably a good deal more employable than you think you are, but you're probably not going to find a job until you start looking for one. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: In the United States, the average time to get a PhD is increasing. It can be easily 6-8 years. It took me eight years to get my PhD. When I graduated, I had a hard time finding any job. Eventually, I found a postdoc position with a relatively low pay, because I had the specific experience they needed and because I already met the future boss when doing experimental shifts. One year later, I started getting around a 50% human response rate to my applications, and finding a job became much easier. Another year later, potential employers started actually initiating contact. It is quite normal for a PhD to take 6.5+ years, and also while you are probably correct about your current job prospects, this can change quicker than you think. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: From how I interpret your question and a couple of comments you dropped, it indeed seems like your advisor is trying her best to support you in the best way possible. This is good, because it should allow you to discuss more openly with her when there is need – and there may be need right now. I do not know which country you are in but I see a problem with your job hunting strategy. If I were a recruiter and saw a CV that has spent a long time in a Ph.D. position (6.5 years is nowadays considered long in my country although it used to be closer to average), I would wonder what is keeping the candidate from finishing. Insufficient planning? Inability to adjust one's strategy? Are they just bad? Of course, you could (and probably do) address that in your cover letter, probably by writing something along the lines of 'I intend to submit and defend my thesis rapidly before joining your company' – but does that help much? In this country, the time between submission and defence can be months (I submitted around December and defended in May) and a recruiter or a company are probably not willing to wait that long. To combat this, I would suggest taking the next half-step already, write up your thesis and submit it. Expect it to take quite some time until your defence – but now you can apply for jobs stating that only your defence is still required for your graduation which puts your entire story into a completely different light. Nonetheless, be prepared to explain why your Ph.D. took as long as it did, but make sure the explanation is relevant to the project or research; not saying that you were delaying in hopes of finding a job. In addition, job searchers are commonly advised to apply for positions even if they do not fulfill all the qualifications specified in the job posting. The company may be interested in the qualifications you already have and perfectly willing to invest in you by teaching you the ones you are missing on the job. Personally, I cannot confirm whether this is true because I did not make it to enough interviews to test the hypothesis and I was often rejected off the bat although I ticked off every single requirement on the job posting. Nonetheless, it is surely worth trying. Having said all that, I am going to loop right back to my first paragraph: I think it is time to have a strategy meeting with your supervisor very soon, to discuss the viability of the strategy I have outlined or whether maybe she can provide you with a short-term (3 or 6 months, maybe?) 'gap-filling' postdoc position to allow you to job hunt more effectively with a graduation in hand. Everything I said may or may not apply to the country you are working in. It applies to my country but each place is different. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/15	2,123	9,144	<issue_start>username_0: I commenced a Postdoc 1-2 months ago and recently presented my proposed experiments at a group meeting that was broader than my immediate team. After the short presentation I was met with a barrage of criticism from senior people in the group in front of my new team along the lines of whether the experiments would be relevant and that they were too experimentally risky. However, I was never the architect of the research question, which ultimately came with the job. Sure I have scope to tweak the experiment design (and I presented a range of options during the talk), but ultimately the criticism they gave were for factors out of my control. What surprised me though was that I thought the academics attacking the project already knew about these sets of experiments, as they were proposed in a general sense as part of the broader project even before I commenced. I did my best to defend the project during the question time without being defensive, but had a few junior academic approach me afterwards indicating the criticism was as severe as I had interpreted on stage. I felt quite humiliated, to be honest, in front of my new group. So my question is now how do I approach this matter? Should I approach these academics individually asking them if they were aware of this research question in the planning documents that pre-dated my position? Should I tell them I was a bit upset and felt punched down-on? Should I remain collegial and let my science do the talking instead? I should note that I was the only one of the 15 or so people presenting that was met with this level of criticism. I’m open to a range of feedback in your responses. I’ve also contemplated whether it was my communication style/persona on stage that attracted criticism, rather than the content.<issue_comment>username_1: Don't take it personally, because the criticisms were "along the lines of whether the experiments would be relevant and that they were too experimentally risky" - i.e. they were criticizing the experiment design, not you. If they were criticizing you, they might have said something like "you should have done X instead of Y, why didn't you think of it?" or "an experiment as difficult as this one should have been assigned to [more experienced researcher] and not Tom". Another thing is, if they don't think the experiment is well-designed, do you think they should tell you? They could keep silent, let you go ahead and possibly fail, but that would be a waste of resources and time. Given that, the thing to do is sit down with the person(s) who developed the experiment design and discuss the criticisms. Are they valid? If not, why not? If yes, should anything in the design be changed? Is it still worth going ahead? Again, don't take it personally. You are not being criticized, and the senior academics are not saying you are incompetent. Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let us start with the meat of it: do you think these senior academics are correct that the experiments are irrelevant and risky? * If so, then you need to take ownership of this. Do not make the excuse that "I was never the architect of the research question." If your advisor is truly forcing you to run irrelevant and risky experiments, then you should not have accepted this position. Otherwise, you are in a position where you can and must make improvements. * If not, then it is irrelevant that you were not the original architect of the research questions; you agree with them and should be able to defend them publicly. Now I have been in groups with this sort of brutal culture, and I know that defending ideas publicly can be very difficult. A few notes: * As you learned the hard way, it is not safe to assume that everyone in the group is on the same page. It is easy for people to "agree" on something vague that everyone interprets differently. Then when we dive into the details, the different views become apparent. * The sort of hard-hitting style you describe can take some getting used to. Some people become very good at parrying these blows; it is a wonderful skill to have. Others find that they never become very good at it, and they learn to seek out groups with a more diplomatic culture. * It is a good idea to get in the habit of meeting with all the different stakeholders regularly to discuss your projects. Showing them a completed proposal for the first time in public will naturally attract questions and concerns that, in some groups, will be expressed as criticism. But if they understand your project and feel like they contributed to it, they will be less likely to throw stones in public. And of course, some of their contributions may be truly valuable, and developing a network is doubtless one of your goals. * You are unlikely to be able to change the group culture, so I would not suggest complaining about the tone of the conversation. On the other hand, your advisor may have some practical tips in dealing with certain people and/or in preparing slides. For example, one thing I learned is that certain unimportant issues will start a huge argument that sidetracks everything, so, it is often wise to avoid mentioning these issues entirely. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: > > What surprised me though was that I thought the academics attacking the project already knew about these sets of experiments, as they were proposed in a general sense as part of the broader project even before I commenced. > > > Don't underestimate the degree to which academics focus on their own research projects and ignore/forget the details of projects done by other groups. You will probably find that the other academics in this matter had absolutely no idea about the history of your project, either because they had never been briefed on it, or because it was not important to them and so they forgot all about it. Hopefully you were able to make some of this clear in answering their criticisms, but if you weren't, you can consider that a failing in your own explanation that you can remedy in future. For this kind of thing, you should treat it just like erroneous referee feedback on a paper --- i.e., misguided feedback should often be treated as an indication that you have not explained yourself clearly enough. A corollary to this forgetfulness of acadeimcs is that you also don't need to be too worried about any long-term problem from this criticism. Most of those academics will forget all about your project, and their criticisms of it, unless it is something that is presented on a recurring basis in the department. If you do need to present on that topic again, you now know that you may need to start with some information about the history of the project and the constraints you were under when you took it over. In regard to the idea that this criticism is "punching down", I find that to be an unhelpful concept in this context. If you are a postdoc and they are professors then yes, you are "down" from them --- is that supposed to give you some kind of immunity? Academic criticism, directed "downwards" is necessary and ubiquitous in academic work, and any critique of work by a new staff member by senior staff is going to fall into this category. Consequently, my advice would be to mark this down as an instance where your audience did not properly understand the history of the project, assess their criticisms in light of your constraints, and proceed accordingly. I do not recommend following up with those academics in the way you have proposed. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I have been in similar situations to yours a few times in my work, and I know how difficult it is. It always helps me to ask myself exactly what my colleagues are disagreeing with. Do they disagree with my ideas, my work, or me as a person (i.e., do they hate me)? The answer is almost never the third, or the second; usually, and especially for newer folks, they're disagreeing merely with your ideas. It took me a while to get used to this fact, and in the beginning it certainly felt like personal attacks - but you have to remember that you're in a field where ideas are valued more than anything. Your colleagues are interested in your ideas, and if they're experienced professors then they're likely able to separate the person from the idea because they've been in your situation too. Take it from me, as someone who is now on the other side of this kind of situation, that your colleagues do not think any less of you and they were not looking to criticize you or punch down on you. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Think carefully about what was said if it is/could be true or not. You should try to work on non-risky highly important stuff; since this is difficult to come by you can also work on non-risky not so important stuff. If you like gambling (in a positive sense, but your career is at stake) you can work on high-risk highly important stuff. Never work on high-risk non-important stuff, your career in science is over before it started. Mandatory read is 'You and your research' by Hamming. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/16	2,005	8,353	<issue_start>username_0: In daily writing, I normally use the possessive form as "shareholders' wealth" or "firms' cash holding", but it seems that in research, I did not see people use the " ' " for possession if the subject is not human beings, similar to how my English teacher guided me, except this [paper](https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/32/7/2587/5079300?login=true): > > Our identification relies on the difference-in-differences estimation based on a staggered passage of leniency laws in 63 countries around the world from 1990 to 2012. In addition to exploiting a leniency law passage in the firm’s country, we look at the leniency law passages in the main export markets of the firm’s industry, and leniency law passages in the firm’s subsidiary locations, and find consistent results. > > > Would "wealth of shareholders" or "cash holding of firms" be suitable in academic paper writing or I can stick with "shareholders' wealth" or "firms' cash holding"?<issue_comment>username_1: Don't take it personally, because the criticisms were "along the lines of whether the experiments would be relevant and that they were too experimentally risky" - i.e. they were criticizing the experiment design, not you. If they were criticizing you, they might have said something like "you should have done X instead of Y, why didn't you think of it?" or "an experiment as difficult as this one should have been assigned to [more experienced researcher] and not Tom". Another thing is, if they don't think the experiment is well-designed, do you think they should tell you? They could keep silent, let you go ahead and possibly fail, but that would be a waste of resources and time. Given that, the thing to do is sit down with the person(s) who developed the experiment design and discuss the criticisms. Are they valid? If not, why not? If yes, should anything in the design be changed? Is it still worth going ahead? Again, don't take it personally. You are not being criticized, and the senior academics are not saying you are incompetent. Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let us start with the meat of it: do you think these senior academics are correct that the experiments are irrelevant and risky? * If so, then you need to take ownership of this. Do not make the excuse that "I was never the architect of the research question." If your advisor is truly forcing you to run irrelevant and risky experiments, then you should not have accepted this position. Otherwise, you are in a position where you can and must make improvements. * If not, then it is irrelevant that you were not the original architect of the research questions; you agree with them and should be able to defend them publicly. Now I have been in groups with this sort of brutal culture, and I know that defending ideas publicly can be very difficult. A few notes: * As you learned the hard way, it is not safe to assume that everyone in the group is on the same page. It is easy for people to "agree" on something vague that everyone interprets differently. Then when we dive into the details, the different views become apparent. * The sort of hard-hitting style you describe can take some getting used to. Some people become very good at parrying these blows; it is a wonderful skill to have. Others find that they never become very good at it, and they learn to seek out groups with a more diplomatic culture. * It is a good idea to get in the habit of meeting with all the different stakeholders regularly to discuss your projects. Showing them a completed proposal for the first time in public will naturally attract questions and concerns that, in some groups, will be expressed as criticism. But if they understand your project and feel like they contributed to it, they will be less likely to throw stones in public. And of course, some of their contributions may be truly valuable, and developing a network is doubtless one of your goals. * You are unlikely to be able to change the group culture, so I would not suggest complaining about the tone of the conversation. On the other hand, your advisor may have some practical tips in dealing with certain people and/or in preparing slides. For example, one thing I learned is that certain unimportant issues will start a huge argument that sidetracks everything, so, it is often wise to avoid mentioning these issues entirely. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: > > What surprised me though was that I thought the academics attacking the project already knew about these sets of experiments, as they were proposed in a general sense as part of the broader project even before I commenced. > > > Don't underestimate the degree to which academics focus on their own research projects and ignore/forget the details of projects done by other groups. You will probably find that the other academics in this matter had absolutely no idea about the history of your project, either because they had never been briefed on it, or because it was not important to them and so they forgot all about it. Hopefully you were able to make some of this clear in answering their criticisms, but if you weren't, you can consider that a failing in your own explanation that you can remedy in future. For this kind of thing, you should treat it just like erroneous referee feedback on a paper --- i.e., misguided feedback should often be treated as an indication that you have not explained yourself clearly enough. A corollary to this forgetfulness of acadeimcs is that you also don't need to be too worried about any long-term problem from this criticism. Most of those academics will forget all about your project, and their criticisms of it, unless it is something that is presented on a recurring basis in the department. If you do need to present on that topic again, you now know that you may need to start with some information about the history of the project and the constraints you were under when you took it over. In regard to the idea that this criticism is "punching down", I find that to be an unhelpful concept in this context. If you are a postdoc and they are professors then yes, you are "down" from them --- is that supposed to give you some kind of immunity? Academic criticism, directed "downwards" is necessary and ubiquitous in academic work, and any critique of work by a new staff member by senior staff is going to fall into this category. Consequently, my advice would be to mark this down as an instance where your audience did not properly understand the history of the project, assess their criticisms in light of your constraints, and proceed accordingly. I do not recommend following up with those academics in the way you have proposed. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I have been in similar situations to yours a few times in my work, and I know how difficult it is. It always helps me to ask myself exactly what my colleagues are disagreeing with. Do they disagree with my ideas, my work, or me as a person (i.e., do they hate me)? The answer is almost never the third, or the second; usually, and especially for newer folks, they're disagreeing merely with your ideas. It took me a while to get used to this fact, and in the beginning it certainly felt like personal attacks - but you have to remember that you're in a field where ideas are valued more than anything. Your colleagues are interested in your ideas, and if they're experienced professors then they're likely able to separate the person from the idea because they've been in your situation too. Take it from me, as someone who is now on the other side of this kind of situation, that your colleagues do not think any less of you and they were not looking to criticize you or punch down on you. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Think carefully about what was said if it is/could be true or not. You should try to work on non-risky highly important stuff; since this is difficult to come by you can also work on non-risky not so important stuff. If you like gambling (in a positive sense, but your career is at stake) you can work on high-risk highly important stuff. Never work on high-risk non-important stuff, your career in science is over before it started. Mandatory read is 'You and your research' by Hamming. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/16	835	3,392	<issue_start>username_0: I just finished my dissertation at a German university that requires that I include personal data (place of birth, date of birth) on the title page of the dissertation. While I have no problem giving this to the University, it has been published on the library webpage and is easily discoverable on Google. I don't want this to be publicly available. What are my options? Can I withdraw my consent?<issue_comment>username_1: As [suggested in the comments](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/173479/my-phd-thesis-has-personal-information-and-i-don-t-want-this-to-be-public#comment466669_173479) by DCTLib, simply ask them to replace it with a version without the personal data (or with the specifics redacted) that you attach to the request. This should be a simple email along the lines of: > > Hi, > > > A version of my thesis with some personal data has been uploaded to on the library webpage. Due to personal/privacy concerns, I want to ask you if you can replace that version with the one in the attachment without this personal data? > > > Thank you in advance, > > > This should be sufficient. If it isn't, you can always mention GDPR reasons, but I can't imagine anybody not cooperating with a request like this. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: This is more of a comment: For many German universities, the "publication" requirement for a thesis can be satisfied by an actual publictaion, e.g. in a book or a departmental series of publications/notes. If that is an option, the library may accept to take down your thesis (or it may not, you'll have to check), and the published version can be a slightly cleaned-up version without the mandatory title page, the "eidesstattliche Versicherung" etc. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This is not actually a personal problem of yours, but a collective one for Ph.D. candidates in your university. You should consult your university's academic staff union, or if graduate student researchers are represented separately, the junior staff / junior researchers / etc union. You should collectively make the demand that this requirement be dropped, for all Ph.D. candidates. It does not make sense for universities to publish this information along with theses - nor, in fact, to have this in the thesis as it is evaluated by academics for its content. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Just to update in case someone runs into a similar problem. They said that the requirements of the University meant that I had to give this information on the title page and they could not remove it or allow me to submit the thesis with a modified title page. However, they said that if I gave in four copies of the dissertation at the library then the online version could be blocked for legal reasons. That is what was eventually done. As a second step, I wrote to Google to remove the cached data. Even after the library blocked the thesis Google was showing personal data. They removed it in a couple of days. I agree with the others that such a requirement is downright dangerous in these days of identity theft especially as in Germany banks and many others accept your DOB and place of stay as alternative ID if you have forgotten your pin for online banking etc. My advice, if your university requires such personal data on the title page, is to hand in only paper copies. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/16	913	3,797	<issue_start>username_0: I am a finance student. I am learning the *impact of bribery laws on dependent variable Y. The literature supports both sides: some studies support that Y will increase after the laws, others support that Y will decrease after the laws. I am wondering how to generate the hypothesis in this case? What I did so far is: "Hypothesis: There is an association between bribery laws and Y". Update*: I appreciate all suggestions so far, so I try to clarify the question more. For example, in my case, there is a variable called Y = A - B. In literature, A and B are supposed to decrease after the law. That is why I have such a type of confused hypothesis formulation.<issue_comment>username_1: At least in my field (one of the social sciences) there are two (and potentially a third one, as per the comment by @YiFan ) options: (1) Pose "competing hypotheses" and write sth like: "Because there is conflicting evidence on the relationship between X and Y, I pose two competing hypotheses: H1a - X positively influences Y; H1b - X negatively influences Y. (2) Pose a question instead and write sth like: "Because there is conflicting evidence on the relationship between X and Y, I pose the following question: RQ1: What is the influence of X on Y?" I personally prefer (2), but that may be a matter of taste. (3) And of course maybe the literature isn't as inconsistent as it seems first, and you can rather specify a hypothesis on the condition under which X influences Y in a specific way, as per @YiFan 's comment Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I hate to jump in to this because it isn't my main "lane", but I have supervised theses based on statistical reasoning, though mostly about learning outcomes of pedagogy. But, I suggest that your question isn't ready for prime time and you need to look at those prior studies to get a better idea about what is going on. They can't all be correct if they can be compared. But perhaps they can't be compared at all. In particular, I'd ask if the background is the same in the various studies. An outcome in one region of the world might be different than in another. Are the definitions of terms in the studies the same? I have my doubts. I'll suggest, also, that you first need to examine why those other studies might have come to different results and also examine any assumptions that were made. The next step, before you could form an hypothesis is to look to which set of studies has an underlying structure most similar to yours. And, of course, the very nature of the question is a bit suspect. Were these before-after studies of the situation (before the laws, then after)? Or are they just guesses/opinions and not true "studies" with a scientific basis. This suggests that you need to get a really firm grasp of the methodologies of the various studies and whether that affected the outcomes in some way. Something is wrong. First figure out what. Then you have the basis for making an hypothesis that might be tested and finding a methodology for doing so. Otherwise it seems to be nothing more than spinning wheels; going through the motions. That gives you only meaningless "answers". Sorry to seem harsh, but social science gets a bad name when it is done poorly. --- Replying to the changed question. I'd suggest that you make hypotheses about A and B separately, not about Y. If you can properly test those, perhaps quantitatively then you can, perhaps form conclusions about Y from the results. For example "H: Given treatment T, A will decrease by at least 10%" or something like that. If done carefully you avoid the dilemma, but it still requires figuring out why the previous studies diverge. That might help you quantify the hypothesis also. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/16	1,678	6,651	<issue_start>username_0: I don't have hard numbers (if you know a good source, please do share), but it is quite apparent that there are many more Ph.D. student positions advertised than PostDoc positions, at least in my field (engineering/CS, Europe). My feeling would be that many labs I know have a ratio of maybe 5-10 Ph.D. students to 1 PostDoc. Why is that the case? Specifically, why do professors or funding organizations prefer hiring a Ph.D. student to hiring a PostDoc? I know that the latter are a little bit more expensive in terms of salary\, but they will generally also be much* more productive. (I'm just comparing myself now at the end of my Ph.D. with myself at the beginning of it.) If I were a professor now, had enough money at hand and could choose freely how to spend it, I'd aim for a much lower ratio, maybe 2 Ph.D. students to 1 PostDoc. Why don't people do that? Are there funding constraints (if yes, for which reason)? Aren't there enough qualified applicants (I would doubt this)? In the larger scheme of things, hiring more senior researchers and less Ph.D. students would also contribute to solving the much lamented (at least in Germany) problem that there is a lack of viable scientific career paths short of becoming a professor. One final comment: in [an earlier question of mine](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/152017/61059), someone replied that universities have a teaching obligation, thus effectively obliging them to hire Ph.D. students instead of PostDocs. However, in my country (Germany) and field, Ph.D. students are not really seen as students; they are essentially fully paid staff researchers. (They also do not visit any lecture courses.) I do not believe that supervising a Ph.D. student is seen as "fulfilling the university's teaching obligations", although I might be wrong about that. EDIT: Since the question of ethics and "do people actually want to stay in academia" came up a few times, here are a few articles about the detrimental effects of job scarcity at the postdoc level: * <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y> * <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250662> * <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01548-0> * <https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2008/08/science-careers-poll-results-realistic-readership> \This will likely vary by region. In another answer, someone claimed that PostDocs are twice as expensive as Ph.D. students. In my institution, however, the pay gap is much lower. Maybe around one fifth or fourth?<issue_comment>username_1: A few reasons from a European perspective: Graduated PhD students are a success metric: Institutions and departments might be evaluated based on their number of graduated PhD students. Likewise, when a professor goes up for a tenure evaluation or applies for a job somewhere else, they typically need to show a track record of successful supervision of PhD students. Successful post-doc supervision doesn't nearly count as much. * Better success chances for post-docs: Successful supervision of PhD students is also a success metrics when post-docs apply for faculty jobs. A research group with a rather high postdoc-to-PhD ratio will give less opportunity for each post-doc to gain the necessary supervision experiences. * Ethical reasons: A situation in which every PhD candidate can get a post-doc, but most post-docs have no chance for a professorship might be considered ethically dubious. A post-doc is a temporary position with the goal of strengthening the post-doc's research profile towards a successful application for faculty jobs. Since there are much more people interested in a PhD than there are available professor positions, there has to be a point where "the funnel is narrowed", as to avoid that too many hopeless candidates are stuck in the post-doc stage without any realistic job prospects. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Graduate students are being educated for a broad range of careers, mostly outside academia. There is, after all, a large demand for PhDs in many fields of industry and in government. Universities heed this outside demand by educating many of them. Postdocs are being educated primarily for academic careers. There is a much smaller demand for them, and so universities hire fewer of them because they would otherwise end up with lots of well-trained postdocs who cannot find jobs for which they have been educated. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Hierarchy is everywhere, whether you like it or not: 1. there are more secondary school graduates than college graduates; 2. there are more Masters graduates than PhD graduates; 3. there are more Post-docs than Professors. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It's not an academic reason, it's because the labor supply is saturated pushing up qualifications people are chasing. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I would argue that the role of a postdoc is often different from that of a graduate student. I would categorize many such reasons as "managerial". For instance: * Post-docs may be expected to serve as a "back-up" or secondary advisor (sometimes in addition to employing full-time lab managers), particularly in large groups, where some post-docs may take on significant supervisory duties. Having too too many post-docs may result in conflict (too many cooks do spoil the broth). * Some professors I have known have displayed distinct signs of "[ageism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism)", that is, a preference for younger applicants (purposely or not, this is often encoded in requirements that PhDs be granted only a few years before applying for the postdoc). The experience that seems so admirable can also lead to friction and confrontation under the wrong circumstances. * Incoming students are malleable and often more patient than more experienced individuals. They are more willing to follow orders blindly and take on risky projects, in part because they are blank slates, also because they have more time to find and develop a successful project. Ph.D. projects are often supposed to be very high risk (at least historically, although this may be declining). Part of the strategy of discovery is to try something so wild nobody else has bothered to test it before. * Postdocs may be highly specialized to either complement or enhance (through teaching) the skills of graduate students. They may be hired for a specific role (rather say than to chase whatever new lead strikes the advisors fancy). There is a natural flow of information here consistent with the educational role of the institution. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/16	376	1,569	<issue_start>username_0: Considering the elapsed time of Covid crisis, have any vaccination regulations been put into place for international students waiting to apply for masters programs in US or related research programs in general? If so, are both doses required if already vaccinated by one dose of a two-dose vaccine?<issue_comment>username_1: Vaccination policies differ among US universities; some require it, and some don't. It's possible that some universities which don't now require it will in the future, for example when the FDA gives full approval. Your question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis, by looking at the websites of individual universities. That said, most places which do require the vaccine are requiring full vaccination (e.g. the second dose). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: > > [H]ave any vaccination regulations been put into place for international students waiting to apply for masters programs in US or related research programs in general? > > > I find it incredibly unlikely there are vaccinations requirements to apply, however if accepted, it is extremely likely you will be required to have a COVID vaccine (among others) by the time you start (presumably next fall at this point). If you already have one dose, then I see no reason to continue holding off applying. Indeed, if you are coming from a country with poor access to vaccines, the university will probably be willing to vaccinate you when you arrive, assuming the US will let you in without a vaccine next year. Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
2021/08/17	576	2,400	<issue_start>username_0: I'm attending grad school out of state, paying upwards of $17K/semester. Over the summer, I was offered an internship (40 hrs/week). A couple of fellow students were also interested in this internship, but I was selected after my code interview. When grad school starts in the Fall, my manager has agreed to reduce me to 12 hours/week so I can keep the internship while focusing on grad school. I also applied for some TA positions and landed an amazing TA Job (20 hours/week), that cuts my fees by half. This is a very basic "service desk" job that needs me to attend to email/phone and some other logistics stuff. So, I signed up for this job too. I've the following questions: * What factors should I consider when deciding whether to keep both of these jobs or quitting one of them? * In particular, should I give up my internship for ethical reasons? Perhaps one of my classmates could capitalize on this opportunity more than I will be able to, given my other time commitments. But I really don't want to give up the internship since I see a future with this company and we have an amazing team. * Should I let my boss at the internship know about the TA position? I'm really not sure that they would approve of me spending time TAing when (from their perspective) I could be spending the hours at the internship. But the TAship is less work for more money, so I really don't want to trade TA hours for internship hours.<issue_comment>username_1: It's somewhat unusual to have a part time internship like you describe, at least in the US. Typically, people who want internships only do it full time, during the summer. But if you think you have enough time, there is nothing stopping you. As for your TA job, the actual amount of hours you will need to spend on it is probably nowhere near 20 hours a week. You should ask the course instructor what a realistic estimate for the workload is. It can vary a lot, both on the course and its instructor as well as for how familiar you are with the material/class. There is no need to tell your internship boss about your TA unless you think it will interfere with your internship. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: This sounds like it adds up to more time than you should be doing work and school together unless the internship is research for your degree, too. Lots of people manage all those together. Upvotes: 0
2021/08/17	439	1,876	<issue_start>username_0: I am a new researcher in immunology and biology. I am unable to keep track of so many papers being published in journals. Do I need to check Conference Proceedings as well? I am not sure what to follow and what to not follow .<issue_comment>username_1: It is simply not possible to read every paper published in your field, nor would it be a good use of your time. As @Roland mentioned in the comments - this is something which your supervisor should be able to guide you on. A few things that I recommend doing are: 1. Find out who the superstar researchers are in your subfield. Follow them and read the papers they publish - at least those which are relevant to your work (eg. set up alerts on Google scholar/Scopus, follow on twitter, etc). This has the added advantage of helping you learn how to do/write high quality research. 2. Read papers which cite your papers (you can set alerts in Google scholar, Scopus, etc)- this will give you an idea of how your work fits in with what others are doing. 3. Talk with collaborators/other students about your research interests (you don't need to give much away and risk being scooped). They could send you papers which they find which may be of interest. 4. Identify the top journals in your field and keep an eye on papers published there in your areas of interest. You can search for papers published in other journals when you have a specific topic in mind, for example when working on a particular research project. I'm not in the field of immunology/biology so can't comment on the importance of conference papers. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I like to search publications from certain top-notch research groups at conferences. I guess it's also good to follow professors on google scholar (you will get notifications on new papers), though I haven't tried much yet. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/17	287	1,121	<issue_start>username_0: We are using OJS 3 and all of our articles are in Google Scholar, except one we published in 2020. How can we add it, is there any solution? We have removed that article one time from the system due to major changes and then published it again after a few days. So what is the solution now to add in Google Scholar?<issue_comment>username_1: Go to your Google Scholar profile and click the + icon in the heading at the top of the list of your publications. Click "Add article manually" and you'll get a popup where you can fill in the details. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Since you removed the paper once and added it again, it may take [several weeks](https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html#crawl) for the Google crawler bot to re-crawl your newly added article. If you are using OJS, I believe it is by default [allows Google](https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html) bots to index articles in Google scholars. A similar situation happened for me once, and it took almost a year for the article to appear in Scholar. Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
2021/08/18	1,076	4,651	<issue_start>username_0: A buddy of mine who lives in Amsterdam told me that it is not a good idea to apply for a PhD as an international student because the chance of getting admission is narrow these days. I would just pay for the application fee and other things without getting tangible results. He said although we are free to apply, it is highly unlikely to get admission because of the pandemic and borders' restrictions. He also added that because as Iranians we have a lot of other problems regarding studying online and getting student visas due to a myriad of reasons. Is a PhD application under the current situation less likely to succeed, and should I therefore rather wait?<issue_comment>username_1: You have two options: 1. Apply for a PhD position and risk not getting the position 2. Not apply for a PhD position and be 100% certain of not getting the position The choice is yours. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I suggest you should do some (more) research, at least to validate the assumptions in your question: * Application fees and other costs. Some Ph.D. programs in Europe don't have any; for instance, when I was applying, many in my area (German-speaking European country / physical and natural sciences) did not have any costs at all. * Visa issues. My institute has admitted as many international students as ever these last two years, including Iranians, and the students have been able to get visas. (More specifically, internship admissions have been affected by visa concerns, but Ph.D. admissions have not, as far as I can tell). Another perspective: how long are you willing to wait for things to improve? Unless you have strong reasons to believe that next year will be any better than this one pandemic-wise, I would strongly consider applying now. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You're asking the wrong question. The point is to make a connection with a potential advisor and talk about potential research work as a Ph.D. candidate. If there's interest on both sides, the potential advisor would suggest when (or if) your friend should apply. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: From the perspective of a professor who has hired PhD students during the pandemic (coincidentally, in the Netherlands -- where we don't have any "application fees" for PhDs): Our ultimate goal is to hire strong candidates. If there is a chance to hire a strong candidate, we do what it takes to make the hiring possible and overcome possible limitations. Therefore, the potential limitations you cite either don't apply, or only apply to a limited extent: * "because of the pandemic" - That's a non-issue. There might be fields in which starting any PhD research currently is difficult per se, because they require physical attendance in the lab. But that's not specific for international students. * "because of border restrictions" - That's mostly a non-issue as well. The border restrictions are generally set up in a way that allows people to immigrate to start a new job, including a PhD. There could be temporary issues when the border to a high-risk country is closed entirely, but experience has shown that these will ultimately be lifted. * "because of visa issues" - This could be an actual issue, especially if the visa offices in your country are closed down due to the pandemic situation. Potentially, visa issues can delay the starting date of your position by many months. In that case, I as a hiring professor would be patient and show lots of understanding, in the hope that you will eventually arrive and start your PhD. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: International student that did actually apply for PhD positions during the pandemic here. I have one now. 1. I didn't get the impression that chances were too narrow. Three international students were admitted to my professors group alone this term including one non-EU. 2. Universities are aware of possible visa problems. According to the welcome email we got, mine seems to be dealing with these cases individually (offer distance learning e.t.c.). I didn't get the sense that it affects whether or not students are admitted. 3. I applied mainly in Europe and didn't have to pay any application fees at all. 4. The only test that I had to take and pay for was my CAE English certificate. You would need this after the pandemic, too (for those Universities that require an English test). So even if you don't get a position right away, you can still use it after the pandemic. 5. Simply contacting the potential advisor is always a good idea. They probably know more about the specific situation at their university. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/18	202	859	<issue_start>username_0: Is there a software or website where I can track the status Editorial Manager system for all, or most, of my journal submissions rather than logging into all of their websites individually? As an example a website like mint.com tracks all my banks together.<issue_comment>username_1: There isn't. That isn't even possible in most cases if different journals use the same software system (say, between all Elsevier journals) and it certainly isn't possible for journals managed by different publishers. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Not automatically. I do use a ticket tracker to keep track of these things manually. A ticket tracker is also known as a bug tracker or an issue tracker. The one I use is <https://osticket.com/>. There are many. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems> Upvotes: 1
2021/08/18	1,294	5,298	<issue_start>username_0: The following question is asked by an international non-EU person: Is it possible to apply for a PhD at a German university/institute without having an external funding/scholarship? In other words, can PhD students finance their own costs while doing their PhD in Germany? For example, you can finance your own master studies in Germany (by proving that you have enough yearly money in your bank account etc.). It seems like there is no tuition fee to do a PhD at a public university/institute in Germany. However, I cannot find information on the internet that show PhD programs that can be applied for without a funding/scholarship. It is usually PhD programs that are funded and posted on job portals. If it is possible to be our own sponsors while pursuing a PhD in Germany, what is the requirements and how can I find/apply for a PhD topic that I am interested in? I have applied for many funded/advertised positions and I find it very competitive and I have failed to be accepted so far. I want to try applying with my own funding this time. Also, what are the odds of acceptance in this case (given that I have enough money to support my life during my studies)?<issue_comment>username_1: It is perfectly possible to do an unfunded PhD in Germany. You basically only need a supervisor and a university department willing to accept you as a PhD student. Once you found a supervisor that is generally not a problem if you fullfill the general requirements (those will vary slightly from place to place). Those requirements include a (good enough) diploma/masters degree (in some cases bachelor will work, too), sometimes also proof of language proficiency. If you are fine with doing a non-funded PhD, I would suggest directly contacting potential supervisors (while telling them that you are OK with non-funded positions, because they will know straight away that they don't have to find funding for you and are thus probably more inclined to take you on) with an idea of a potential topic. Some might be sceptical if you want to do it unfunded (as you are more likely to drop out), so you should have some kind of plan to present to them on how you will be supporting yourself. I am not sure if there are visa issues if you don't have an income as a PhD student, but this can be inquired at the immigration office. EDIT: [here](https://www.academics.de/ratgeber/individualpromotion) is a website in German with more info on doing a non-funded PhD in Germany. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Depending on the field of expertise, you don't need to have external fundings. Many PHD positions in germany are "normal" research positions which get paid correspondingly according to the "Tarifvertrag" TVöD E13. Again depending on the field, this position is often not a full positon in the contract, meaning you get e.g. 50% of the ascribed salary. Also not all positions are always posted on jobsites, so you could still find a paid position by just cold-mailing institutes professors. Also have a look at smaller universities, as for the big ones to have a much higher amount of competition per position. Note that this is highly dependent on the field of expertise. I for example research in informatics, and having 100% paid positions is common. However from studying Physics I know that it is much harder getting even the 50% paid positions, which becomes worse for social sciences and arts. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It's possible to finance your own PhD, but a lot of supervisors will not prefer to take a student without funding. My PhD supervisor was very clear to me very early in my application process, that he would not take me as a student if I did not have a scholarship. He specifically said "we don't want your funding to come from your parents or from your personal savings, we want you to be on a scholarship". In many ways, I agree with their attitude towards the funding of my PhD. In fact in all my years of experience, I can only think of one student who was completely "self-funded", and he was sent home after 1 year because he did not pass his transfer viva (the presentation where the student explains their proposed research in front of a committee, in order to "transfer" from probationary PhD student to full-fledged PhD student). He was also one of only very few people I can think of (across many universities around the world), that did not pass their transfer viva. Regarding this statement of yours: > > "I have applied for many funded/advertised positions and I find it very competitive and I have failed to be accepted so far. I want to try applying with my own funding this time." > > > That is *part of the reason* (but not the only reason) why the most successful supervisors will be hesitant to take students that are not on a scholarship. If you are struggling to get into a PhD program, you might struggle even more to finish the program, which in your case means you're at risk of losing a lot of your own personal money and you could potentially fall years behind in your eventual career. You might also be interested in some of the answers to: [How to give advice when asked "Should I do a PhD program?"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/171467/93303) Upvotes: 3
2021/08/18	1,496	6,082	<issue_start>username_0: I am a new Instructor, started during the pandemic and am only going into my second year. I work for a smaller local college, full-time. The college is a located in the U.S. in the Mid-West (Ohio), it offers 2 and 4-year degrees. When starting in 2020, I was hired with the understanding that I come into the college, teach, hold office hours and then I could go home. However, this year they have decided that all instructors must be on campus 40 hours per week, 8-5. I teach business courses, many times I have questions that come in after hours, plus I typically grade and do prep work after hours. So my question is: is it normal to be required to sit at a desk (in this case a cubicle) 40 hours per week? Or, can one typically come and go as teaching requires, with scheduled office hours for students? Being new to the industry I am trying to understand the norm.<issue_comment>username_1: I find this unusual in the US, but you say you are in a smaller, local, college. I've taught in such places and the rules there seem to sometimes diverge from what you see in larger places, even private colleges and universities. Proprietary and for-profit colleges may diverge more from the norm. The typical rule is that you need to spend a certain number of scheduled office hours per week and also be "responsive" to students. But not that it is considered a 9-5 job. That doesn't serve anyone very well. In the age of covid and zoom it is entirely possible to fulfill all of your non-classroom duties and never go to the office. Teaching, itself, is a more difficult proposition, of course. An additional constraint might be that you spend some time in the office 4 or 5 days per week. A typical professor probably spends much more than 40 hours per week on things related to their employment: teaching, helping students, research, service to the college and community. In return for this, the professor is normally allowed to set their own schedule with only a few limiting parameters. The issue with this scenario is that, like a worker in an auto factory, once the bell tolls you are free. You have no job related tasks at all. I'd hate to be a college president trying to make sense of that. Intellectual work, in particular, requires breaks and not just five minute scheduled breaks. If you have to sit in your office, staring at the wall when you are suddenly stuck then you are wasting time and reducing productivity. I can foresee that there are places with such rules. I predict they are rare. I suggest that you look for other opportunities if you have no influence on academic policies. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: No, it is not normal at all, in all my observation in the U.S. The by-far-usual idea is that since class prep, grading, committees, and so on, take such irregular amounts of time, usually more than 40 hours a week after teaching (and research), the administration is happy to get the work done. That is, they're happier with people working ambiguous 50+ hour weeks than closely monitored 40 hour weeks, and necessarily in the office. Occasionally, also, various administrations have had spasms of need-to-control faculty. Years ago, here in MN, a state legislator saw a well-known senior faculty person mowing their yard mid-day on a Thursday... which precipitated massive turmoil about whether faculty were earning their pay, what's the work-load, etc., etc. Seems that we recovered from that. A few years ago, there was an administrative spasm which wanted to require that all faculty with grants paying summer salary should be present on campus M-F, etc. It was pointed out that this failed to make sense in several ways, and we recovered. It is not hard to imagine that the tension of the pandemic has addled some administrators' brains to the extent that they want to "regain control" (rather than tolerate people "working" from home, sitting in their pajamas in comfortable surroundings, rather than crappy offices/cubicles...?) So, as you suspect, this is a very hostile attitude, and is a very bad sign about the administration, if it really persists. All the more surprising/disappointing after the pandemic has shown that much work can be done remotely. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: You don't say whether your school is private or public, whether it's a for-profit school, whether or not you're represented by a union, or whether your employment contract addresses this issue. It's very difficult to say what is "normal" without this kind of context. But no, in general, this is not normal at most schools in the US, and it doesn't sound like it's normal at your school either, since it was imposed on people who were already working there. There have been some comments to the effect that administrators doing this kind of thing would have to be knuckleheads or obsessive control freaks. I don't think that's quite right. If the school is trying to maintain high quality of instruction and offer in-person learning during covid, then it's reasonable for administrators to be concerned about getting faculty to have a significant in-person presence. It's just a little extreme to make that into an absolute mandate for being on campus M-F 8-5. I'm retired from a job teaching at a unionized community college in California, and during the time when I was at that job, before covid, there were ongoing tussles between the administration and the union over attempts to require faculty to be present on campus for a certain number of days per week and to be available for required in-person meetings. The union saw this as unreasonable, and many of my colleagues were angry about it, but I have to say that it didn't seem completely unreasonable to me. A certain percentage of the faculty were trying to do the absolute minimum possible amount of work without getting fired -- and that amount was pretty low if they were tenured. I overheard one of my colleagues bragging to his student in a health class about how easy his job was and how few hours a week he spent on it. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/18	622	2,661	<issue_start>username_0: I recently did a research study and submitted it to a suitable journal which covers the field. One of the referees said that the same analysis has been already done and referred to an article that was submitted to arXiv two months before our submission date. The mentioned article covers less than 50% of our work: the part of the work which is trivial and not challenging. This referee did not take any scientific objections and judged only on the apparent similarity between two papers. The second referee said that the work is interesting and non-trivial and asked some questions for revising the paper. The third referee (adjudicator) has made a decision based on the 1st referee's judgement and also pointed to the mentioned article. I have 3 questions: 1. Since we obtained the results almost simultaneously (I did not submit the paper to arXiv and directly sent it to a journal) and since our results are much more complete, and we cover topics that are not included in that article, can I send my objection to the editor and will it work? (Our paper is better in any respect, e.g., English writing, innovative conclusions, …) 2. Since the three reviewers reviewed the article, is it possible that the result (rejection) changes? 3. How can I write an objection that works? Note: I am in a tight spot in terms of time and another peer review means another 1-3 months.<issue_comment>username_1: Only the editor can answer the question, but you can certainly raise your points with them. But my best guess is that you will need that revision since part of your work has appeared. The editor might, validly, ask that you take some things out of your paper and, instead, cite those parts of the arXiv paper that are essential to the rest of your work. I doubt that the editor will be willing to publish your work "as is", but only they can say. Like they will be a bit conservative in their decision. While it doesn't seem that you have plagiarized (an intentional act), including everything might make it seem that you have. But, you will need to be fast. The other team isn't standing still, most likely. Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The referee believes you did not pay enough attention to the arXiv article. Modify your paper to cite this article, and clearly indicate why your work constitutes a substantial extension, then resubmit to a different journal. Also, you have no real evidence that this omission was the sole basis for the outcome. More likely, this was only one factor. I think it's unlikely that the rejection will be reversed, and you'll lose more time in the process. Upvotes: 5
2021/08/19	3,858	16,216	<issue_start>username_0: I am an EU student studying for my MBA in Germany. I have been a top student throughout the year. However, my thesis (24% supposedly plagiarized text) and the last two assignments (55% and 56%) have resulted in plagiarism. The plagiarism has happened mainly because of self-plagiarism in my thesis, not citing common knowledge while being identically used, not citing page numbers, and not properly paraphrasing. I have cited everything, but the writing and paraphrasing have not been efficient, especially with the last two minor assignments. I did not do it on purpose, and it was all an unintentional mistake because of my own lack of knowledge of academic writing and lack of guidance from my professors. However, the university has given me two weeks to write an official statement, and a committee will decide on my temporary or permanent exclusion from the program. The permanent exclusion seems disproportionate punishment, and I want to get my statement right and avoid being excluded. Can anyone help me with tips on how I can approach my statement to improve my chances? I appreciate any opinions or previous experiences. More details: * I had financial pressure, so I started working full time while taking classes, finishing my thesis, and delivering three last assignments. I was under a lot of mental pressure, working day and night from April till the end of June. My goal became to deliver something that can be good enough to pass. * The percentages refer to identical matches (or very little paraphrasing) in two main categories of self-plagiarism (my own prevision publication) and common knowledge, which I did not cite or paraphrase. Again, I cited everything, but I did too little paraphrasing and was not acceptable by the examiner.<issue_comment>username_1: Permanent exclusion from the program is indeed very harsh and probably only used in the most severe cases of blatant plagiarism and cheating. I do not expect this penalty to apply to your case, given the circumstances. However, it sounds to me like you were indeed too sloppy (56% similarity is a lot!). Although your mistakes are understandable under the circumstances you mention, the fact remains that it will be hard for anyone to reward you with a passing grade for copying and pasting a quarter of your thesis and more than half of two final assignments. Academic degrees do not come for free: In most places, any kind of thesis expects you to demonstrate that you understand the matter and did some research and analysis on your own. The other side of the story is that self-plagiarism and "not enough paraphrasing while citing the sources" are not the worst kinds of plagiarism. Not citing common knowledge and leaving out page numbers are normally acceptable, but taken together with the above I think it becomes a bit too much to let it pass silently. So what can you do? Be honest and hope for the best: * explain your difficult circumstances, * demonstrate that you actually studied and understand the subject, * explain that you understand your mistakes, have learned from them, and will avoid them in future, * explain (if this is true), that you have not plagiarized in the past and that you performed well, * let the committee know that you are willing to put in extra work to earn your degree (eg. improve your thesis and re-do the final exercises), and * plan some time to work on your degree or thesis: if you do get a chance to redeem yourself, this will probably mean a substantial amount of extra work. Hopefully the committee will understand the circumstances, but from what you describe I think you can expect some form of punishment, probably involving extra work, so make sure to plan some time for this so you do not fall into the same trap again. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Plagiarism is not something that randomly occurs, it is an act committed by a person. Here, this person was you. Take responsibility. Make sure to understand what plagiarism is. It is only tangentially related to a similarity score computed by some tool. If you have not actually plagiarised, be prepared to explain in some detail what happened during the writing process, and how you wrote text phrases similar to those used by other authors; either independently or crediting them appropriately. Sloppy referencing is not necessarily plagiarism, and, in my opinion, rarely merits punishment beyond bad grades for the relevant item. If you tried to give credit where it was due, but did it in a substandard way, point to the evidence of your attempts as well as to you having learned now how to do it better. Self-plagiarism is not a special kind of plagiarism (and probably should have been named differently). You do not mention where the recycled text is from, but besides a previously written thesis I don't think there is a source for which there is a clear consensus that you can't reuse it in a dissertation[1]. As such, if this is to count as academic misconduct, it would be because you violated a specific rule at your university. Find out whether such a rule exists, and what it says. [1] If it is published in some way, you ought to cite it (and there is no reason not to); but I wouldn't agree that failure to do so is misconduct. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you need to start with an informed second opinion. Get someone who is an academic to look at your document, the accusations against you, and your defense that the document is not plagiarism, and tell you if your defense is reasonable. If you have an assigned tutor, that would be a good person to ask. I say that because, it's really hard to tell from what you have written here if; A) You didn't plagiarise, the only reason this accusation has been made is your referencing was poorly understood. B) You don't understand plagiarism and you actually have committed plagiarism. C) The process was started erroneously by an automated system. If A is true, then you really really messed up the referencing. These misconduct processes don't start because someone got a url wrong. Whoever read your work couldn't even tell the references were there. You need to be clear on what you should have done, and how you will improve, and seeking outside advice on that will show your intent to improve. That is what you will write in your statement; how you got the referencing wrong, the advice you sought, and how you would do it better next time. If B is true, you need to apologise, and resist the temptation to defend anything. Your statement need to be free from excuses, or claims that you didn't understand. As tempting as that may be, it will look like you have not grasped the seriousness of this problem. You need to write a statement that explains that what you did was wrong, you understand what you should have done, and you hope they offer you a chance to demonstrate that. There is also a small chance that this process was started by some automated system, C. And just the high similarity score with idiosyncratic reference format, caused the accusation to be made. If that is true it is even more important that you ask an academic in your institution to look at these accusations, because this would be immediately obvious to them, and they can stop this from going any further. I think this is unlikely to be the case. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You probably deserve to be expelled. Normally, my focus here would belong in the form of comments to improve faulty premises in the question; but in this case the OP is so entirely riddled with misapprehensions that a larger space is needed. There is so much to unpack that's wrong with the present question. I deal with cheating a lot at my institution, and I think they've ticked off all of the top-5-frequently-seen-excuses list. Almost everything in the OP's question doesn't make sense. Some highlights: * "My thesis (24%) and the last two assignments (55% and 56%) have resulted in plagiarism" -- so you've committed plagiarism again, and again, and again, repeatedly, without correcting course. * "not citing common knowledge while being identically used" -- if it's common knowledge, then it doesn't need citing; what you mean by "identically used" is that you copy-pasted (plagiarized) someone else's writing. * "not citing page numbers" -- this is not plagiarism. * "it was all an unintentional mistake because of my own lack of knowledge of academic writing and lack of guidance from my professors" -- totally unacceptable excuse for someone at the Master's level; at this point it's your responsibility to learn the acceptable practices, and frankly it's unbelievable you could get to this point without having heard them. * "I had financial pressure, so I started working full time while taking classes... I was under a lot of mental pressure... [etc.]" -- totally irrelevant issue; you've either committed academic malfeasance or you haven't, and trying to distract from that issue has a bad smell to it. * "Can anyone help me with tips on how I can approach my statement to improve my chances?" -- how likely are you to copy-paste something someone writes here to produce your statement? But as someone who regularly deals with these issues, the single biggest red-flag is the following theme: * "not properly paraphrasing" * "the writing and paraphrasing have not been efficient" * "I did too little paraphrasing" What does this focus on "I did too little paraphrasing" mean? It means this: You're one of the (many) people who believe that it's acceptable to copy-paste others' writing, and then exchange a certain number of words until it avoids detection by automated scanning systems. When someone writes "paraphrasing have not been efficient [sufficient?]" it means you think you should have exchanged some more words from the copied text, and then you'd avoid detection, and that's what plagiarism-avoidance means. You've probably been doing this on all you papers for a very long time. I see this over and over. Exchanging words is still plagiarism. As soon as you copy someone else's writing, that is plagiarism. Regardless of how many words you exchange later. If that's your standard paper-writing process, then you have been plagiarizing everything you ever submitted like that. And if that's the case, and you've now submitted a largely plagiarized thesis, as well as multiple other papers, then it's very hard to see how that is recoverable at this point. It's possible you really don't know how to write a paper, and never did. Perhaps the best course now is to say, "no comment" to any part of the investigation -- so as to not compound the trap with further dishonesty and promises you can't keep -- and then entirely re-learn how to write properly in another (maybe remedial) program. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Get a lawyer specialized in the field. The way you present your case here, you will only make things worse if you write the statement yourself. Look at this like a court trial because basically it is. You will be creating evidence which can and will be used against you. This thing has the potential to impact your career very much. Pay some lawyer 400€ an hour to do it right instead of making it worse by yourself. Consider this: you write something in your statement that can be understood as admitting plagiarism. They expell you. You appeal to a court. They cite your statement. You lose. You are already on trial - it just hasn't reached an actual court. But you can already screw up the whole case by submitting that statement. Get. A. Lawyer. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: You have already done it and it's useful that you have learned your lesson. The only thing you can do is accept punishment and the only way to get a 'win' is to get a smaller punishment. The best way would be to accept your problems but try to justify them in less than two sentences because you don't want to look like a person who is avoiding responsibility. Secondly, think about reimbursement in some other forms. Try to praise them a little bit by saying that if I got caught by a higher authority then it would have created many life issues. Always remember: They are just doing their job. You are somewhat of a disturber and no one likes those. You have already created a negative impression and fixing that is a lot harder in just this short of a time span. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: Hate to say it but username_4 is probably largely in the right here. These numbers are way high - we have a similar system implemented and highest I've seen among people we studied with was 5% give or take. Paraphrasing smells of sorry school essays approach which is unacceptable for a Masters level student. Your problem is not that you did not paraphrase enough, it is that instead of rather than copying and editing you are supposed to spin a coherent "story" of your own. Very basically, imagine you have read something on the internet and are discussing it with some friends - just pulling out your phone and reading the post aloud in its entirety would be silly. Academic writing is not terribly different from that. With all that said, there are a few lines of defense here... 1. If you have properly provided citations and attributed work to respective authors, it would not be as much of an ethical issue, rather just a job poorly done. This has way less severe implications and is probably your best option here, if available. Even coming clear with too much Ctrl+C Ctrl+V to pad page count to meet the submission requirements is better than essentially saying "oh well my bad didn't trick the automated checker enough". If anything, overusing direct quotations is blatantly obvious to a human reader. 2. IFF these similarities mostly come from the introductory parts, this also could be written off as a poor understanding of what you were supposed to do in those. However, that also implies there's not so much of your own work in the entire thing... 3. Self-plagiarism is more of a gray area. One is almost universally expected to not reuse own work for articles (for the same reason, journals would reject too much quotations from already published work, that brings no value to the reader). For conference talks, lectures, written reports, even books it is the exact opposite - they are less atomic, often delivered to different groups of people and academics are routinely reusing things they made earlier. If anything, if you have to report on the same work you wrote an article or two on, and the report for some reason is not limited to providing references to said articles - why do the same work twice and overcomplicate it by the need of "paraphrasing". It is important to understand what the requirements are. In STEM, copying others verbatim is a big no-go - again, not because others would shun you but because this is not the work you are supposed to be doing at all. If you are doing some literary analysis, say, it is expected for some direct quotations to be provided. Even then, a single full paragraph of text should be extremely rare. Your numbers are way way high. And finally... Quoting needing to work to make ends meet is not really a viable defense. If you cannot commit enough, you cannot commit enough, and this just doesn't work in academia. That is not an easy decision to make but the situation is not really "I do not have to have a responsibility for my choices yet, just have to get through university and the life would sort it out somehow". It would not. You are not alone, actually - for many it is the period in life when they have to make really, really big decisions for themselves for the first time. You can't bury your head in the sand anymore. Especially not in academia. And start with that last point. Until you work out, with honesty, what do you want to do with your life and how much are you willing to commit, all these fine people at the faculty would struggle with helping you succeed. Most often, they sincerely want to help, but sometimes the best help they could provide is pushing you off the cliff. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/19	698	3,194	<issue_start>username_0: I am a rising junior, looking to apply to PhD programs in Statistics in a couple of years. I go to a liberal arts school and there is almost no research going on during the semester. I did research (3 months) this summer, which went really well. We managed to write three papers, and one of them is going to get published at a proper research journal while the other two will be submitted to undergrad math journals (hopefully). I will hopefully get into another research program somewhere next summer. Is this much research experience going to be enough for grad schools? I've seen applicants mention that they have 1-2 yrs of researches by working over the semester but I clearly lack that. My GPA is pretty solid though (3.9 + ), and my recs should be fine too. Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: The ideal amount of research experience is as much as you can get. It's great that you can get publications already because of your summer research experience; know that these such experiences are intended for people who would not be able to get research experience otherwise. I would definitely recommend that you do another such program next summer, as you mentioned. I would suggest you try and see if there is any way to get involved with research at your school during the semester if you would like, although part of me assumes you have tried this already. I don't think that this is necessarily going to limit you though, since many people are in your situation (liberal arts institutions with not much research opportunities available or started research late). Barring the amount of research that you have done or have been able to do, the best ways to strengthen your application would be on the other portions, which include getting good recommendations from your research experiences. Also, you will want to focus on writing a good statement of purpose and explain what your research interests are and how they may align with your prospective graduate programs, as well as how the research experiences that you have had have shaped those interests. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you apply to a doctoral program in the US with a BA/BS you are expected to have a good academic record, especially in the field of interest, as well as good letters of recommendation from professors who can attest to your likelihood of success. You aren't, for most applications, expected to already have research experience, though it is a plus. The decision will be broad-based and all positive factors contribute. But the competition is also fierce. The first years of the doctoral program will be taken up with advanced courses in field, leading to the comprehensive examinations. You may not even do much research for a year or two of doctoral study (though this varies). At some point you choose, by mutual consent, a dissertation advisor and then get down to the serious stuff. Note that this is a very common path to success in the US, since the undergraduate degree is normally intended to give a broadly based education, not a particularly specialized one. Your GPA is good. Make sure you get good letters. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/20	540	2,425	<issue_start>username_0: I am currently submitting an article to a prestigious journal. However, after about four months, the article still has yet to be assigned to an editor. We contacted the journal two months ago, to which they replied that they were experiencing difficulties in finding an appropriate editor. We suggested some editors, but we haven't heard from the journal since then. I have asked the corresponding author to send another follow-up email to the journal, but I haven't heard from my corresponding author since then. As a co-author, is it wise for me to contact the journal myself in this case?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends; sometimes, the corresponding author doesn't pay attention in checking the status then you can write an email to editors, just inform co-author you also talked to the editor to check the status. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I suggest that you don't do this, and work it out somehow with your co-author(s). You will be complicating the process if the "corresponding" author isn't somehow in charge of correspondence. I doubt that the editor would appreciate it. One way to proceed is to write a note to the corresponding author (CO) suggesting the wording you would use in a note were you the CO. They might just sign their name and send it on. If you make it easy for them it is more likely to happen unless they have some valid reason for not contacting the editor. And, yes, some papers have a hard time finding appropriate reviewers. The more esoteric your paper, the more likely it is. And it might even be a really great and innovative paper that is the one for which few are qualified to review. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: No. Although the situation where you haven't heard from the corresponding author in over two weeks after emailing them and have no other means of contacting them would be wild. If it is much more recent than that - and I take it you're not that close with the corresponding author - I would suggest observing summer vacations and people having those. But either way, try to get information from the corresponding author first. In extreme cases, emailing someone from their chair trying to clarify the situation might be a good idea. Talking to the journal separately, with dissent between authors, is no-no. Assigning an editor also sounds weird but well, it might be the summer again playing into that. Upvotes: 0
2021/08/20	8,870	37,666	<issue_start>username_0: My organisation has recently started advertising certain meetings as being "Safe Spaces" without describing what is meant by such a thing. [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/safe%20space) describes it as: > > a place (as on a college campus) intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations > > > which strikes me as a concept which is unlikely to be conducive to holding an effective meeting since it makes addressing disagreements impossible. Meanwhile, the [Cambridge dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/safe-space) says that it is: > > a place or room, for example at a university, where people can go if they feel upset or threatened > > > which is a very different thing indeed and not obviously relevant to holding a meeting. So, is there a common definition of the term? Is it a place where people are able to speak freely, or is it a place where people are forbidden from speaking freely?<issue_comment>username_1: There is no standard definition. Most often, I have seen "Safe Space" used to refer to the office of a person who has completed a specific training on not mistreating people. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: First, let me suggest that the organization explain what it means, perhaps as a set of principles, which is more likely to provide guidance than a firm set of "rules" that might be "cleverly" sidestepped. But, I'd think that the meaning is that participants in such meetings have assurance that they will "feel safe" to contribute their ideas, whatever they are, without being personally attacked. There are racist and sexist members of the faculty, of course, though hopefully rarer than in the general population. And, in universities, "attack" can be anything from verbal abuse (not physical, most places) to simple intimidation of junior faculty by their higher ranked "peers". I've been in organizations where I had to just learn to "shut up" because the organization thought it was doing just fine with policies and actions that were actually disruptive. I wasn't happy about it and left rather soon. I actually held senior rank, but it was the lone newcomer vs the old guard. So, meetings to discuss policy didn't feel "safe" to me. Perhaps one of the committees for which this is an important issue could suggest principles and/or rules to the larger institution. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the Merriam Webster definition you reference: > > a place (as on a college campus) intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations > > > is failing to emphasize sufficiently that first item in the list: "free of bias"; a safe space is about being safe in terms of identity, including gender, race, sexuality, religion, national origin, etc. It does not refer to lack of conflict as in "Gary and Mary both want to expand their labs into the space vacated when Jamie retires", or whether to order food for seminars, or the superiority of one sports team over another, or how to handle a case of suspected plagiarism, or how to organize collective examinations. The original concept of the safe space, as far as I know it, is that they were intended to be places specifically for marginalized individuals. For example, a safe space might be a meeting where women could discuss sexual harassment and assault they have experienced without the presence of men (especially men with seniority) who might respond dismissively. I think it's more likely that in the context you describe (though more information would be necessary to be sure) the term is being used to further a target that all spaces should be safe for everyone by excluding dismissive, discriminatory, and hateful speech rather than separating from individuals who are not members of some marginalized/disadvantaged/mistreated group. Attendees should feel comfortable and safe that when they attend they will not be dismissed or called out for their skin color or sexuality, that they will not hear language that suggests their views or complaints are wrong due to their gender or ethnic background, etc. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm not sure if 'safe space' ever had a formal definition — and clearly it's been contested and co-opted by certain elements of US Rightist media who'd like to use it as a bogieman — but the concept stems from the [restorative practices](https://www.iirp.edu/restorative-practices/defining-restorative/) and [restorative justice](http://restorativejustice.org/#sthash.9nnbh7v5.dpbs) milieu. The general intention is to create a 'judgement-free' context in which actual or perceived harms can be discussed, examined, and repaired, with the goal of fostering healthy and compassionate human relationships between people who may perceive each other as adversaries. Directly to your last question, restorative practices aim to increase self-expression by restricting the mode and manner of speech. Put simply, it increases the freedom to express content by reducing freedom in how such content is expressed. Language and behaviors are prohibited when (and only when) they have the effect of demeaning, inhibiting, overwhelming, or otherwise silencing others. Restorative practices are usually used for attitudinal issues: ingrained patterns of behavior that entail sometimes subtle but significant expressions of power. Common subjects are implicit sexism, racism, ageism, or homophobia; bullying or oppressive speech or mannerisms; poor teamwork, be it from leaders, peers, or subordinates. I'm not certain what this would look like within a generic business context (much less your organization, which I know nothing about), but that is (ostensibly) the kind of thing you can expect. But I agree with comments: the organization itself should spell out precisely what they mean and plan to implement, and may even want to have separate meetings specifically to practice restorative methods. Restorative practices are quite difficult to implement, and going into it without a proper game-plan is a recipe for disaster. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I like to think of "safe spaces" in the context of the animal kingdom, or rather, the Disney version thereof. A safe space is something akin to the watering hole in the Savannah, where the (Disney) animals of all sorts come; lions drink next to gazelles, zebras next to tigers. It's a place where the animals can come and discuss - whatever, but not risk being eaten or attacked. It's not to say they can't have meaningful, important discussions - but there is a tacit agreement that the lions and tigers won't eat the other animals. The same applies to "Safe spaces" in a university setting: it's not a place where nobody can talk about anything, or even a place where you cannot disagree. It's a place where you agree to act nice, and to come to discussions with good intentions. You can still be a lion, and still disagree with the gazelle or the hyena. Just don't act mean-spirited, belittle them, put them down, attack their character. And don't be aggressive - that's often the hardest, particularly for younger students; you can be sure someone's wrong, and want to keep going at them until they change their mind, but that's not the right way to go about anything, and especially not in a mutually agreed upon Safe Space. Make your argument, and then if they don't agree, move on, and prove yourself right with actions and time, rather than badgering. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I think the Merriam Webster definition you referenced is pretty decent, but let's break down exactly what it's saying. > > a place (as on a college campus) intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations > > > A "safe space" should be free from: * Bias: an inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair. Prejudices, especially unfair ones, against people inside or outside the meeting and against ideas shared in the meeting can make people feel like others dislike them and their ideas and they shouldn't share their ideas. Bias in itself is a rather large topic in society in general and workplaces in specific and is generally concerned with how we treat people differently based on their race, gender, culture and religion, whether they have disabilities, etc. * Conflict: a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one. This is about serious disagreements, not all disagreements. Simply politely disagreeing with an idea is not really "conflict". Conflict is a much more tense and heated disagreement that's certainly not something you want in a meeting and it can certainly make people uncomfortable. * Criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes. This is not about simply disagreeing. It's about highlighting flaws in something, often in a harsh and mean way without offering any better suggestion and tends not to be too constructive. **Constructive criticism** may or may not be considered separate from this, and can often be very valuable. But this generally implies a position of authority or knowing better and a discussion among equals might not be the right place for that. Even if you are their superior, discussions in meetings are often (more productive when they are) treated as a discussion among equals. Whether constructive criticism is acceptable is probably something you'll have to judge based on your workplace. Although it's also worth keeping in mind that the problem here is very much one that makes it less likely for people to speak up, so it's going to be far from obvious when people aren't happy with the status quo. Asking questions to understand the other person's point of view is often received better, because it shows that you actually care what they think. From there you can dig deeper and find the root cause of why they believe something different from you, and correct them. This may also result in you finding out you were wrong instead and may also lead them to figuring out the problem themselves without you having to explicitly point out the problem. Which of the below would you prefer to be told after first presenting an idea? > > Wow, that's a terrible idea. There's no way that will scale. (Pure criticism) > > > OR > > > I don't think this will scale well because ... (More constructive criticism) > > > OR > > > How will we scale this? / How well will this scale? (Not criticism) > > > They should all lead to the same place of them either justifying why they think it will scale well, or realising that it won't. Although the first may also lead to them just sitting down and shutting up without improving their technical understanding of the subject nor presenting their justification for suggesting it in the first place. The second may seem much more innocent and many people may not have a problem with it, but it can still lead to the same result as the first if that's the first place you turn to when someone presents an idea. Of course you can say "I don't think X is true because ..." if they assert that X is true at some point after digging down to figure out the root cause of the disagreement. The point is not to avoid such statements completely, but instead to not jump straight into "this won't work" (because you think you know better than they do) as opposed to first trying to figure out why they think it will work (which seems much more appropriate if you believe the other person is competent). * Potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations I would define threatening actions as basically just being threats. This should go without saying, but don't threaten people. I can't find any definition or example of "threatening ideas" or "threatening conversations" anywhere. I presume definitions will vary, but I would say it's something "should we kill all pointy-eared people?". This is obviously a blatant and extreme example, but there may be some ideas that are threatening in more subtle ways (like saying "pointy-eared people are less intelligent", which may lead to mistreatment and hatred of pointy-eared people). Again, probably pretty self-explanatory why that's bad. Arguably any idea that challenges (i.e. "threatens") any belief someone holds would be a "threatening idea" (even if their belief is, say, bigoted), but I wouldn't say that's what the definition of "safe space" is talking about. I would say it's more about things that could be threatening to people's lives, well-being, health, etc. If someone is particularly prone to seeing negativity and malicious intent where none was intended, they may see an unreasonable amount of things as "potentially threatening", so it's probably not something you should try to avoid at all costs under all circumstances to the point of potentially never saying anything at all. But avoiding potentially threatening things is a sound idea in principle. (definitions taken from Google’s English dictionary) In conclusion, the above things are not conducive to effective meetings where people can share their perspective openly and refraining from doing any of them should not prevent you from respectfully disagreeing with anything said. --- Some may go to more extreme lengths to keep a space "safe". This may include excluding people of certain races or genders from "safe spaces" because they feel including them may invite the bias, conflict, etc. into the space. In other cases any form of disagreement and anything other than the most kindest and gentlest of words may be disallowed. I don't feel those interpretations would lead to productive meetings, or make much sense in a workplace or academic setting in general (or possibly even anywhere else), so I'd assume those don't apply to any "safe space" until I have evidence suggesting otherwise. Of course it should also be acceptable to ask for behaviour guidelines for such spaces if you're looking for more explicit clarification. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I do not usually see the "safe space" label applied to what we could call "productive" meetings, e.g. meetings where people are presenting findings, or working on planning a study, event, etc. I think a lot of answers are imagining this when you say "some meetings." Safe spaces are often open fora for discussion. For example, a group on women's harassment would not allow you to deny someone's experience or the effect on them (no "frame challenges"). Similarly, a trans support group is not for people to question trans identities, but to talk about shared experiences. For me, based in the Twin Cities, there were meetings to discuss the murder of <NAME>. It would be expected in those safe spaces for example, a Black community member could express how the murder impacts them more than a White person. Or for someone who lived nearby to discuss how it affected their life differently. In some ways, I think of it like improv, where you can't say "no - that didn't happen" to someone. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: "Is it a place where people are able to speak freely, or is it a place where people are forbidden from speaking freely?" Yes. Both. All societies have norms about what beliefs and expressions and behaviours are socially acceptable. Intense psychological pressure can be brought to bear on people to conform to those norms, to try to fit in. Anyone standing up against those norms will usually face intense hostility, even persecution. It has been a feature of human societies throughout history. Tribe against tribe, religion against religion, nation against nation, political faction against political faction. It has got less violent over time, but is still ubiquitous in human society. Safe spaces don't change this. They switch around which beliefs are considered socially acceptable and which are not - so people who in traditional society feel intimidated from speaking because their beliefs have been held to be unacceptable are freed to speak openly, and those who would previously have enforced traditional social norms are now suppressed as being socially unacceptable. They become "safe" for people who otherwise would otherwise feel suppressed, but suppress people who previously would have been safe. Objectively, there is no difference. This is exactly the same sort of human behaviour as applied previously, just with people sitting in different seats. Subjectively, whether this seems like an improvement depends on which tribe you identify with. There is potentially some benefit from holding meetings in which various different silenced minority views are allowed to speak - you get to hear ideas and viewpoints you otherwise would not. But there is a danger in leaving some views out. So you can argue for a meeting in which a particular minority view runs the show, but then you must have another meeting where the critics of that view get their say too, and are safe from social retribution for thus breaking other people's norms. Otherwise you defeat the entire purpose, and become what you set out to defeat. It is essential in setting up such a "safe space" system to clearly communicate what specific viewpoints are being encouraged and suppressed in each meeting, and to ensure that all viewpoints get their turn in some meeting or another. Or it just becomes another instance of social tyranny. > > "Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism."JS Mill, [On Liberty](https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html), 1859. > > > > > > > Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: In terms of helping you understand what “safe spaces” means in the specific context in which you’ve seen it used, I would like to suggest the following hypotheses: 1. The person who used the term does not actually have a very clear idea what the term is supposed to mean, and was using it in a thoughtless, casual manner. So, what it actually means from that person’s point of view is unknowable, since they didn’t actually mean anything very specific. Or: 2. The person who used the term thinks they know what the term means, but have the wrong idea. In that case, what they meant is perhaps discoverable by asking them, but is unknowable otherwise. The thing to keep in mind is that people quite frequently use words and phrases in the sort of thoughtless or misguided manner that I’m describing in these two hypotheses. So, perhaps what’s going on is not such a big mystery. An additional hypothesis, which seems to be the premise you’re assuming in the question, is: 3. The person who used the term did in fact use the term in one of its commonly accepted meanings, for example the first dictionary definition you cited. What’s baffling about this possibility is that in the context of a meeting, designating a meeting as a safe space can be useful only for a very certain kind of meeting - mainly a meeting in which people share their feelings about a sensitive subject and hope to reach some kind of catharsis or relief. On the other hand, for a more ordinary type of meeting in which (perhaps contentious) policy decisions need to be discussed and made, designating the meeting a safe space would appear to be counterproductive — maybe even disastrously so. So my hunch is that this bafflement is the reason for your question, and the reason you feel a need to clarify the meaning of the term. Now, to address your specific question: > > Is it a place where people are able to speak freely, or is it a place where people are forbidden from speaking freely? > > > I think @AzorAhai nailed it when he said safe spaces are places where a frame challenge or major disagreements are considered taboo. In other words, a safe space is a place where some people are encouraged to speak freely about some specific issues that bother them, whereas some other people who are inclined to disagree with the people in the first group are very strongly discouraged — essentially, forbidden — from speaking freely about their disagreement. So, the idea behind such a space is to shift the dynamics of who feels able to express themselves freely, and what views are considered tolerable and worthy of expression. Again, if that seems at odds with the purpose of the meetings you have been invited to, then I would go back to hypotheses 1 or 2 that I mentioned above as a likely explanation of what’s going on. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: From the existing answers and what I've seen online elsewhere, there seem to be two main movements pushing for safe spaces with their own understanding of it. a) A space where you should be open to speak your mind in a "civilized" manner. In particular a space where you are heard out and your personal feelings and experiences not outright dismissed as false. And a space where your opinion is not dismissed explicitly or implicitly just because of who you are/to what group of people you can be attributed to (nationality, skin colour, sex, hair colour, clothing style, gender (identity) etc.). This includes no ad-hominem attacks. Note that this doesn't in its core deny factual discussion, the questioning of facts and depending on context even the questioning of experiences (in a respectful manner) if that is to further the meeting and not just to attack a person/invalidate their view because one cannot emphasize. It may, however, also include to not bring up topics (likely) offensive to a person involved in the meeting or drop a topic that turns out to be hurtful or offensive to a person. And this is then where it gets interesting and a safe space might lean in favour of minority groups (rather avoid topics potentially (perceived as) offensive to them) as a safeguard to skew the balance in their direction as to counter the fact that they might have less power otherwise. Here the free speech part gets a bit more interesting. But 1) for most organizational meetings there shouldn't be much (not necessarily no) risk to steer into that territory and 2) this is a general issue as without the safe-space it's the minorities who might be just shut down by the majority pressure. All in all the core goal is to provide a good open space to discuss, very much in line with an individualistic world view (judge people and their arguments based on their merits not their unrelated attributes). Note that I'm describing the general pattern/core concept, different people might grasp it slightly differently and implement it differently. A bit more on that below. b) A space to let it all out Another understanding for safe spaces seems to go more into a therapeutic direction: Allowing everyone to express their feelings, thoughts and experiences - typically centered around a particular topic. This applies to groups of women who want to discuss sexual harassments or trans-people or ethnic minorities etc. It's a space for them to discuss their impression of whatever \isms they experience in their daily life without being shut down because the majority cannot share these experiences, considers them invalid, or questions them as soon as they are brought up. It's not necessarily about finding an objective independent truth but about having a place where to express the respective feelings and potentially find allies. Here, often members of other groups or the group that is considered the main perpetrator are not allowed to speak up (or only in limited way) or even be present. Variant a) makes (in its ... let's say ideal form) so much sense, it feels to me simply like another term for being a professional decent human. In my opinion all public and work life should follow that concept. Yes there will always be conflict around the fringes or say uncertainty where exactly being "decent" stops, what topics to bring up how in the given social norms or not at all and how to be honest while still being decent. The one spin I could see being special about safe spaces is to take extra care not to ignore and suppress minority voices. However, declaring something a safe space to me is the lazy route in that regard. It would be much more helpful to provide training in mechanisms that encourage minority group members or generally more quiet team members to speak up, e.g. like having the boss/loud group out of the meeting or required to stay quiet for x minutes etc. If someone introduces this variant in an organization as a general concept, the goal and effect is probably to 1) encourage people who feel in the minority/shy to speak up in meetings and 2) to give people who feel being attacked/suppressed an argument to bring that up, e.g. with HR. It can communicate the message that the company wants a respectful environment. Why one would limit that to meetings only is beyond me^^ Obviously the concrete implementation and understanding can vary a bit - but in general this should not hinder free speech in meetings. It might shift the odds slightly in favour of otherwise overheard groups. However, as all policies, ideologies etc it can be misused and perverted in its implementation. If you have a men-hater person in HR, they can get easier fodder now to pursue their victims and construe something (while it might be harder for a women-hater in HR to ignore complaints from women). Also notice that most people are somehow part of a minority, perhaps not one of the big ones, but even pineapple-pizza eaters should be encouraged in a safe space to bring up the idea to have that pizza type stocked in the company's fridge (for example) without being afraid to being ridiculed and shut down. Now b) also makes sense, but only in dedicated settings. If applied everywhere in an organisation it would likely make that organization blind to factual truth. It could be powerful for political movements to re-enforce the conviction of their members but as it tries to protect one side from being suppressed by the other, it totally shuts out the other and thus isn't a good way to find a balanced solution that works for everyone. So applying this approach to company meetings seems weird. In general, there seem to be a few main problems when introducing a "safe space" approach that I see a pattern of (second hand only so far): both concepts often get mixed. Safe spaces that are ridiculed and feared by some in universities seem to lean strongly into the b) group (or at least their perception) but applied to a broad range of meetings or even general everyday interactions such that it conflicts with the general purpose of a university (open debate and critical thinking and interaction). * Implementations suck. As most good ideas, the implementations often fall way behind of what the authors of the good ideas wanted to achieve. Especially regarding such social struggles where emotions and group behaviour often get in the way of good implementations. * Good ideas and concepts can be perverted. Ideologies that are good in essence tend to attract support from people. But that also makes them a good tool to mislead people (consciously or subconsciously). You claim to follow a universally good goal, everyone hops on board and starts rowing, but the steering is totally off and everyone ends up being the voluntary slave rowers of a war galleon going in the wrong direction and sinking their own fleet. An overzealous minority group supporter might for instance just push their own group and agendas with the concept and suppress everyone else having the backing of the public for pursuing the good cause. Or even perverting the concept in prohibiting addressing crucial issues like sexual assault because it might trigger someone else. * A good portion of the critique of safe spaces is probably also perception - as even with a good implementation of the a) concept some balance re-adjustment can be made and if it works more minority opinions can be heard. People often don't like their views being challenged and having suppressed minorities speak openly can be a major challenge to a majority complacent in their status quo. And equally a majority member voicing their opinion can easily be misread as an attack if it doesn't comply with a minority position especially in the heated climate some part of the West is currently in regarding some topics. *All in all, no one can tell you in advance whether your implementation* of a safe space will be limiting to free speech for you or liberating. It depends on the actual understanding by your superiors of the concept and how well thought out the implementation is. You can maybe gauge by the language used whether it falls more into category a) or b). The more towards b) it goes the more you might feel worried (if it is applied broadly and you care about 'truth finding' in your meetings). Otherwise my advice would be to consider it a reminder to be decent enough to really hear others and respect their point of view. And take it as encouragement to speak up - in respectful ways. Rather questioning and providing your perspective when criticising something that is subjective in nature than assuming your opinion is shared universally. Just because you like Salami pizza, not everyone needs to, is a good thing to keep in mind, in general. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: tl;dr– A safe-space is a place meant to promote some desired phenomena by hedging out detrimental influences. The rules of a safe-space will depend on what they're trying to foster; it's not a one-size-fits-all thing. --- ### Safe-spaces hedge out influences detrimental to what they're trying to foster. A safe-space** is a place warded against detrimental influences. Examples include houses, protective cases, fenced-in areas, nurseries, cribs, clean rooms, refrigerators, etc.. In general, the idea is to figure out what sorts of detrimental influences might cause harm, then hedge them out. Likewise, a social safe-space would be a place warded against detrimental social influences. Exactly what those are depend on the goals of the safe space: is it a place for people fleeing violence, for people with addictions to get clean, for religious/political groups to engage in discussions with like-minded individuals, etc.? The rules of the safe-space will tend to depend on what it's attempting to foster and strategy for hedging out influences detrimental to that cause. If an organizer doesn't clarify what their safe-space is about, might be easiest to just ask. Since it may be a sensitive topic for them, probably worth considering how the question's worded to reduce potential for misinterpretation. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: This is an interesting thread and it has attracted a diverse range of answers. Part of the variation in the answers reflects the fact that the concept is sometimes presented in a rather vague way, and this leads to multiple divergent interpretations. However, I think the diverging answers here on what a safe space is mostly reflect the fact that the concept itself is named and defined a way that allows it to be defended with the infamous [Motte and Bailey argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy). In that context, defenders of the practice often have two incongruous meanings of the concept; one being the defensible version that is less controversial and the other being the way the safe space is actually practiced. In my view, the very helpful answers by [AzorAhai](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37441/) and [DanRomik](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40589/) reflect the reality of what a safe-space does (i.e., the Bailey) in most cases, whereas many of the other answers reflect the “brochure description” that is used to justify the existence of the practice. I suggest that the two meanings commonly attributed to the concept are roughly as follows. --- The Motte --- how the concept is advertised: A safe-space is a non-threatening space where people are free to be themselves and there is a requirement to be civil, courteous, and an expectation to avoid conflict and criticism. The Bailey --- how the concept is (usually) practiced: A safe-space is a space where certain ideas and assumptions are favoured and are allowed to be expressed freely without being subject to challenge. In an academic context, it is often ---but not always--- the case that the favoured view consists of ideas that conform with notions of “social justice”, “wokeness”, etc. People advancing the favoured ideas are encouraged to speak freely and people opposing these ideas, or challenging their premises, are discouraged or forbidden from expressing their dissenting views. The onus is on dissenters from the favoured view not to create conflict by expressing their own views in a way that would contradict the favoured view. --- As you can see, the notion that such a space is “safe” depends on the definition being presented. In the former case the space is defined to be generally non-threatening and courteous, but in the latter case it is practiced in a way that makes it “safe” for one group of people (those with favoured views) and “unsafe” for others (those with disfavoured views). One of the frustrations that people sometimes have with safe spaces is that there is ambiguity over the meaning of the concept and consequent expectations, and consequently the actual practice of such spaces is sometimes hostile and to people whom it does not favour (e.g., per the Motte and Bailey tactic). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: A safe space is a place, where the identity is usually protected. In other words, you are protected (I never understood how). The only reason I can think of it being introduced in meetings is to make it possible to not have personal negative feelings after a disagreement. This may be due to your ego or such but this does have an effect. Another definition used by others is usually when there are sensitive topics such as racial discrimination or sexual harassment which might make people disagree on really high ends. These are the only definition that ever comes to my mind. edit : My explanation is a little less intuitive than the best answer here by username_3. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_14: A safe space is a playground of sorts, where one can (pretend to) wield power without any form of accountability or responsibility. It has two applications to beware of: * Getting gullible participants to speak freely enough to give the organizer leverage over them. * Silencing all opposition to allow the organizer to push any decision they like. I cannot judge for you whether the organizer has one of these applications in mind, or perhaps both. Even if the organizer does not have these applications in mind, it is not difficult for participants to recognize them, and use the lack of safeguards against such abuse to their own advantage if they wish to do so. In any case, a safe space is a minefield. Think very carefully before agreeing to participate in such a safe space, and extremely carefully before speaking. As for your specific question; the precise meaning of "Safe Space" differs from person to person, and from organization to organization. Beware that if others feel you are not acting in the spirit of the "Safe Space", they may respond extremely aggressively, and there may be serious consequences. I advise you to ask the organizer what they mean precisely when they say meetings are "Safe Spaces", and ask for concrete rules and the purpose (or 'spirit') of these rules. Stick to these rules, keep your head down, don't say anything that can be used against you, and make sure the meetings are documented well so that they are not abused to circumvent the existing decision-making processes. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/20	414	1,940	<issue_start>username_0: A lot of software offer student or academic licenses that prohibit the use of the software for commercial purposes. A lot of scientific journals are edited by for-profit companies and publish papers for their own commercial purposes. Now my question is: If the software is used to - for example - create figures for a paper that will be published in a for-profit scientific journal, is this considered "commercial use"?<issue_comment>username_1: For an author writing a paper, the answer would be no. The author isn't exploiting the software for commercial use, but for scientific/academic work. The author that uses the software isn't selling anything, nor profiting from it monetarily. However, if a traditional journal were to take the same software and use it to prepare figures for authors (or covers or whatever), then that would be commercial use. The journal is, itself, a commercial entity. If the interpretation for authors were different than this, I fear the land would be covered knee deep in lawsuits. I'd guess that most people developing such software envision and support exactly this use, not just making pictures for your kiddies. Note that the answer for books might be different, since publishing books is a commercial activity and the author will profit from it. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Most student licenses I know up limit usage to educational purposes. Using software under such licenses for the purpose you describe would be research usage or professional usage, and would not be allowed under such licenses, "commercial" or not. This will vary by license, though. Some are VERY specific about limiting the use to coursework, and some are more generous. "Academic" licenses are more nebulous. They're often pretty pricey, and are pretty much full-function licenses limited to "academic" use -- and the uses you describe are usually allowable. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
2021/08/20	1,747	7,311	<issue_start>username_0: I do not study physics at the university, but I have a very important scientific research. I do not think that a magazine will accept my research, though, because I am not sufficiently specialized in the field. Is there any way to obtain intellectual property for my research without publishing it in a magazine? Or are there any physics magazines for beginners that preserve intellectual property rights?<issue_comment>username_1: In most of the world, what ever you write, provided that it has creative elements, is yours by right. You have all copyrights to it until you give them up. In fact, part of the normal publishing process is to give up your copyright to a journal. If you publish it yourself, say on a web site you have, and can claim, "all rights reserved". That doesn't mean, however, that no one can use or build upon what you write, provided that they cite it. Devices, as opposed to creative writings and such, may need to be patented for you to keep rights. However, the rules vary somewhat, so "most of the world" doesn't mean "all of the world". The only way to be sure that you "can't/won't" be published is to submit a paper for publication and see what happens. Affiliation with a university is not a requirement, nor is the background of the author. Avoid "predatory publishers", however, who will publish anything and take your money to do so. You will need to meet the usual standards of "novelty" and quality and make sure that you can situate your work within the larger scientific body of knowledge with appropriate citation, but that is the case for everyone. And, it is possible for some to enter into collaborations with people who do publish, provided you can meet them. This will likely result in publication, of course. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You're worrying about the wrong thing. The danger is not that someone will steal your work, it's that nobody will ever read it. The reason for this is: 1. In the modern age, it's very easy to prove that you did the work first. Everything is timestamped. 2. There are more good ideas to work on than anyone has time to pursue. Thinking of a cool idea is the easy part, doing the work to show it's useful is hard. 3. Lots of not so useful ideas are being pushed too, so filtering through them to find the useful ideas can be hard. It is very likely that any useful work builds on other work. If that is not true of your work, then honestly, you should probably read a bit more of the literature, because you are likely repeating something that already exists. When you have identified who's work you are building on, check if they are still alive. If they are not still alive, find out who else has cited/ or built upon their work. That is the person you should contact. Write them a quick email, saying you have written a paper that is related to their work. Tell them a bit about it and attach your paper. This person is in the best place to help you find an appropriate way to circulate your contribution. For physics, that would probably be the arxiv, and the arxiv describes almost exactly what I have just suggested here; <https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement> --- Edit; username_1's comment highlighted that I should probably say something about the licences when you do find someone to endorse you on the arxiv. [Arxiv requires that you chose one of these licences](http://export.arxiv.org/help/license); > > * grant arXiv.org a non-exclusive and irrevocable license to > distribute the article, and certify that he/she has the right to grant > this license; > * certify that the work is available under one of the following Creative Commons licenses and that he/she has the right to assign this > license: > > > + Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY 4.0) > + Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA 4.0) > + Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0); > * or dedicate the work to the public domain by associating the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0) with the > submission. > > > This part will be easy. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: File for a patent at the US Patent and Trade Office if you're concerned that someone might steal your work or monetize on a similar idea before you're capable of doing it. Note that you can only get a physical component, system, manufacturable product, or process patented. It has to have real-world application and in general solve a problem in a unique way that no other patent accomplishes. An abstract idea or algorithm can not be patented. But a procedure related to that abstraction or algorithm can. Plants and ornamental design features can also be patented under different applications. Before filing, make sure that your idea is novel and consider how you will run your business, if it's something you plan to sell to consumers. This will require some research into existing patents. Also consider contacting a registered patent lawyer or representative to help streamline the process. This is just one solution other than publishing into peer-reviewed journals, and it may / may not apply to you. I'm not professing it's the only solution. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: So you don't study the subject, and you aren't specialised in the field you are researching, your research is important according to yourself, and you are primarily concerned with getting credit for your results, rather than determining whether your results are correct, new, or important to other people. These are warning signs. There is a very high chance your research is not correct, not new, or not important; and you almost certainly do not (currently) have the proper knowledge or skills to assess any of those things yourself. If your motivation is to contribute your results to the scientific community, the best way to start would be to get some independent advice from somebody who can assess whether your results are correct, new, and important. Keep an open mind; find somebody suitably qualified, and ask them if your work has any merit. Don't tell them you are sure it does, because you shouldn't be sure of that in the first place. And if they tell you your work is flawed, believe them, otherwise you will become a [crank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)). Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: What are you trying to achieve? You say you want to "obtain intellectual property for my research", but why? And as @RichardHardy points out, your question asks how you can make a contribution, which is entirely separate from obtaining intellectual property (or recognition) in respect of that contribution. Do you want the kudos that comes from being identified as the originator? Do you want to reach a wide readership? Do you want to exploit the idea commercially? Do you just want to prevent other people exploiting the idea? Or do you just (as the question suggests) want to help in the advancement of knowledge? Publishing your ideas in a blog, with a copyright notice at the bottom, would protect your IPR. But it wouldn't help you to gain any revenue from your IPR, and unless you find a way of publicising the existence of your blog, there's no guarantee that anyone would read it. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/21	519	2,113	<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a major revision for an article to a World Scientific journal today. However I am in a confused state. I had to submit two documents: 1. Revised Manuscript, 2. Response to Reviewers, both in PDF format. Though I submitted both the documents, I find that in the complete PDF that I submitted to the journal, my "Revised Manuscript" is attached first and then the "Response to Reviewers" is attached second. The complete PDF which I submitted is of 15 pages. In pages 1-10 the revised manuscript is attached, and from 11-15 the comments are attached. I think it should be the other way round, i.e. first "Response to Reviewers" and then "Revised Manuscript" should have been attached. I wrote to the editor about this but no one replied. I am worried that the reviewers will find me careless because of this mistake. Will it have any effect on my manuscript? Is it possible for someone to please let me know how the revised manuscript is sent to the reviewer? Does the reviewer receive everything (revised manuscript+comments) as a single PDF file or are they sent separately? This is my first time, so I am not completely sure how the process works. Can someone who has done reviews for a journal (I am sure there are many here) please help?<issue_comment>username_1: Usually, we receive the entire file; revised manuscript plus your comments. If your comments are missing, we may ask the editor if it 'looks' like it should be attached to the pdf or email. It does not matter whether your comments come first or after the revised paper; my preference is for the comments to come first. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The ordering really doesn't matter. It's a trivial matter to scroll to the other section, or to bring up a new window to read both at the same time. Reviewers receive both the revised manuscripts and the comments as a single file, but if any reviewers have complained that the comments come before the revised manuscript (or vice versa), I have not seen them, and I have interacted with many, many reviewers. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
2021/08/21	814	3,542	<issue_start>username_0: I have a group research proposal assessment at my university, and my friend had previously completed the subject, so he gave me his assessment as guidance for how the proposal should look. His group and my group's research proposals are completely different, but the layout design of how the assessment is presented is quite similar. I'm concerned that it will be considered plagiarism for having a similar structure/layout design and spoke to my group about it but they didn't seem to be bothered as much as I am. The topic is completely different and every word is completely our own, however the figures/tables look quite similar. We made our own figures and tables based on our topic but the design ideas of the figures/tables as well as the assessment layouts are pretty much the same.<issue_comment>username_1: I think you are in the clear. As an example, most research papers in my area look the 'same'. This is because everyone uses the same template and tools. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Note that what is plagiarism in the wider world might be different from what a professor considers plagiarism for purposes of assignments. Often the latter are far stricter than the former. So, we can't say here, since it is your professor that will make the determination. However, in the wider context, you can't plagiarize common knowledge and it isn't plagiarism to reuse (read copy) things that can be done in essentially only one way. In particular, if the outline doesn't contain any creative elements, then copying it is not technically plagiarism, though it is your professor who has the only important vote. The arguments here may be effective with them or not in the case that you are charged. But note that plagiarism has to do with creative elements, ideas, and those require citation. But some forms of copying, while not, technically, plagiarism, are also improper. --- As an example from another domain, I currently read a lot of mystery novels for relaxation. I've noticed a pattern used by several authors. The first chapter introduces the villains and their horrific crimes. The second chapter introduces the detective/hero of the story. Different chapters are given from the viewpoints of various characters, not always the hero. It is just a common (though not universal) pattern. No one thinks much of it, though a more creative "outline" might be refreshing. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This is completely fine. Moreover, it is common in academia for this kind of conduct to be encouraged. And there is an important distinction. If you take someone's book and copy the chapter list from there with minor alterations, it is a creative work dealing directly with the subject you both are working on. No bueno. If it is a proposal (or quarterly report, or any other writing dealing with formalities rather than the subject itself), however, it should provide whoever is in charge of assessing it a clean and familiar structure. There is a reason the layout of the dissertation is highly standardized - the content, obviously, is not. In some cases, it is even okay to copy certain cliché phrases, but this is more of a gray area. After all, you're supposed to pick those up while learning in order to not have to seek them elsewhere when writing a "real" proposal all by yourself. Focus on research first and what do you want to say; "how?" is the second step and successful communication requires to understand the listening side perspective. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/21	631	2,543	<issue_start>username_0: My paper has been rejected recently but its content could be seen in the [Research Square](https://www.researchsquare.com/) website. Why has this happened, and why did it also get a DOI link? I asked and they answered: > > Thank you for your message. Your work has been posted as a preprint on > Research Square through the optional In Review preprint service > offered by SpringerNature during journal submission. > > > A preprint posted on the Research Square Platform is issued an > official DOI and becomes a part of the citable scholarly literature. > DOIs are intended to be permanent records and cannot be fully removed. > Additionally, GoogleScholar, ResearchGate, EuropePMC and Crossref > automatically index preprints, creating a permanent digital presence. > In Review preprints remain posted regardless of the status at the > journal. > > > However, please note that the DOI also ensures that your work is > properly linked to you, which helps avoid another individual claiming > credit for your work. Finally, preprints are widely embraced by most > major publishers, so a preprint is unlikely to negatively affect your > publication chances. > > > Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. > > > So can I publish this work in another journal? Since it is not published? I don't understand why they have done that.<issue_comment>username_1: I suspect you [opted into this](https://www.researchsquare.com/researchers/in-review): > > To opt in, all co-authors agree to have their manuscript posted as a > preprint with a CC-BY 4.0 license and a DOI, becoming a permanent part > of the scholarly record. Read more about our editorial policies here. > > > If you were tricked into this by an odd website then perhaps these journals are not reputable after all. I have never heard of having the submission to the journal combined with the posting of a preprint. I think these should be separate but I can see the appeal of combining this. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Research Square seems to be an attempt by SpringerNature to make a profit by operating their own preprint server. I suggest that this will never work and the scientific community will not support their efforts. The fact that your work appears in Research Square has no relation to your submission of the paper to another journal. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You are free to publish it anywhere. Nature has a tie up with research square only for preprint like Arxiv. Upvotes: -1
2021/08/21	1,611	6,844	<issue_start>username_0: I have taught an introductory statistics class at a local university for a number of years now, and have a policy of no late work/tests without prior approval. (Of course, emergencies are exempt) I have also told my class that illness is a valid reason for missing a test, and as I understand that not every illness requires a doctor's visit, I don't require a doctor's note - simply send me an email beforehand letting me know. Now, I'm having problems with this policy. I have had students sleep through exams and be completely honest in why they missed the exam; they simply shut off their alarm. These students do not get to make up their exam. While on the flip side, if a student simply wants to take an extra day to study, all they have to do is claim to be sick, email me in the morning before the test, and voila! Free day to study. (I have not had any students take advantage of this habitually; i.e. sick every test.) This feels ridiculous to me; I feel like I'm punishing students for their honesty. How can I have an attendance policy that holds students accountable for being in class, while allowing for illness that doesn't require a doctor's note? Edit - additional info: * I don't have an attendance policy for general lectures - I figure if they want to come to class, they will. If they don't, that's their choice too. It's more that the exam is given and due during the class they are missing. I like having hard deadlines for homework/exams - I feel it's better to teach accountability and bonuses as making my life easier grading/keeping track of assignments.<issue_comment>username_1: You have identified that your mixture of policies creates [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive) and that the consequence is that honest students are punished relative to dishonest students. If it feels ridiculous to you, that is a sign that things are not working well and you need to reform the process somehow. > > How can I have an attendance policy that holds students accountable for being in class, while allowing for illness that doesn't require a doctor's note? > > > In a certain strict sense, you probably can't. If you allow a reason for non-attendance that is judged purely by the say-so of the student (without requiring external evidence) then that is necessarily subject to fraud, and there will necessarily be more punishment for an honest student who misses a test than a dishonest student who misses the test but uses an accepted excuse. If you would like to proceed with something like your present policy, I recommend that you consider "blunting the perverse incentives" by lowering the penalty for non-attendance. One option you could consider is to make some/all the assessment "redeemable" in some way (e.g., counting best three out of four tests; all in-class tests redeemable in the final exam, etc.). In my own teaching, I have often used an assessment structure where I break the work for the session down into (three) parts and give an in-class test for each part, which is redeemable against a section of the final exam. The final exam is then structured so that it is just like a set of (newly written) in-class tests put together. Students may attempt any or all of the parts of the final to redeem the corresponding in-class test. (They have a fixed allotment of time large enough to do all three parts of the final exam, but if they choose to only do one or two of the parts, they have the luxury of working more slowly.) This structure gives me the advantage of being able to be quite strict on the in-class tests without an excessive penalty to the student, since they know they can redeem a bad mark in the final exam. This assessment structure has been popular with students (not surprisingly) and I have found it really helpful for ensuring that there is a failsafe in the event of some problem in a test. It is also good from a pedagogical point of view, because it means that the student only needs to demonstrate competence on each part of the course once, but they get a couple of chances. If you were to implement some kind of "blunting" of the penalty for non-attendance (e.g., some kind of redeemable assessment) then this might be sufficient to encourage students to be honest with you and take the penalty for sleeping in. A student is far more likely to confess to such a shortcoming if they know that they will still have a reasonable chance to pass your course. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: ### Follow university policy regarding testing rather than making up your own. Your university should have standardised rules for tests across the board, in order to facilitate a standard experience for all students, maintain the integrity and fairness of the assessment process across the university, and to facilitate timetabling during the end of semester exam block. By allowing students to push their exams back a day on their own word that they were sick, you're not only rewarding liars and punishing honest students, you're also facilitating cheating (since the students who have taken the exam can tell the students who haven't about the questions) and disrupting the exam timetable for every other class on campus. As such, I would recommend that you look up your university's examination policies and make sure that your own policies are in compliance with them. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There are a few options to incentivize people being honest: (1) Give a leniency: everybody can, for whatever reason, re-take one of their exams at a given moment if they failed the first try or didn't attend due to whatever reason. * Pro: everybody has the same advantage. * Con: More work for you in lanning and correcting. (2) The lowest exam is dropped for everybody. So if they didn't attend, either because they overslept, were sick or didn't study, the exam gets dropped and the remaining four exams count towards their final grade. * Pro: fair for everybody, no additional work for you except in final grade calculation. * Con: No full understanding for the course is required. If some students have a passing grade after four exams, they don't need to pay attention for the final part. (3) If there are homework grades, you could see if there is a way to use those. If homework aligns (roughly) per exam, you can let the students pick one exam to swap the corresponding homework grade with the exam grade. * Pro: fair again, makes sure that they grasp the concept (assuming they make their own homework). * Con: More administration for you to ensure their final grade calculation is correct. These assume that students are only sick once during the semester on an exam day. If it is something more permanent/serious, of course a doctor's note is required. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/21	547	2,164	<issue_start>username_0: I am planning to send emails to potential Ph.D. supervisors in my area of research at the start of September. I recently found out that most of my colleagues have already sent out these letters as early as July, and I am now worried that I waited too long. What are the negative consequences of a late email to a potential advisor? Is it possible they may have already committed to taking in another applicant by the time I have sent in my email? Note: I am applying to Fall 2022 for a Ph.D. in Chemical engineering in the US. I am currently working as a research assistant in a lab in Asia, where I have been working since finishing my Masters Degree.<issue_comment>username_1: You are probably just in time now to apply to most US doctoral programs for Fall 2022. But it isn't clear from your question whether you understand the process. In the US, the first contact is not normally with a dissertation advisor, but with an admissions committee. After admission you can start thinking about an advisor. The advisor, in most programs, doesn't admit you to the program and may or may not fund you. Departmental funding is very common. [Here is a (dated) description](https://www.findaphd.com/study-abroad/america/phd-study-in-usa.aspx) of the process in the US. Advisors are normally chosen after comprehensive exams and by mutual consent. It also gives you a chance to meet and, perhaps, work with a potential advisor before approaching them. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Agree with @justauser.. However, do not commit yourself to a particular supervisor before you get there.. Get your admission, go there, study for a year, and then finalise your advisor(s) and your committee.. Also, it is your Ph.D. committee, so be bold and choose committee members who suit you -- No need to blindly follow your supervisor's suggestions on this. Before I went to my uni, I badly wanted to work with Prof A... But after I attended that university for a few months, I realised that the temperament of Prof A did not suit me at all.. Thank God that I didn't commit myself to Prof A before I got there. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/22	1,691	7,164	<issue_start>username_0: This post [How do mathematicians conduct research?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34038/how-do-mathematicians-conduct-research) includes some explanation on things mathematicians do. I am now also a little curious about how much money/resources are used in this process. For simplicity, let's suppose a pure maths professor gets a research grant of, say, 200 thousand, or 1 million USD. (Over a couple of years.) Note I have edited the amount according to the comments below. Then, what is the typical list of things on which he or she spends the money, and how much roughly will be spent on each item? 1 million or 100 thousand is a pretty large amount, so the list of things on which we spend the money is probably a bit long, I guess. For example, roughly how much of the grants will be spent on PhD students? (I know the quantity is not fixed. I am just looking for some rough idea.) I think an answer to this question would be very helpful for understanding how research in pure maths works. (After all, the spending of maths research is going to be very different from a scientist who works in a lab!) Note that I am specifically asking about pure mathematics (analysis, geometry, number theory, etc, etc). I hope that this will narrow the scope of this question to a sufficient extend for an answer.<issue_comment>username_1: Depends on the country and where the grant comes from. At some universities, for consultancy type grants, they will be a tax. This tax is used to support any overheads related to administering the grant. After that, you may use it to supplement your salary, hire a post-doc or research assistant, buy out your teaching, pay to visit collaborators (and vice-versa), attend conferences, pay publication cost (page charges), buy yourself a new computer and pay for software licenses. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: To supplement the other answer in regards to how much is spent on what, I think the only general statement that can be made about larger grants is that most of the money will be spent on salaries. (Where by larger I mean enough to pay someone a salary in the first place.) The university's cut is fixed anyway, the amount one can reasonably spend for office equipment and similar expenses is reached quickly and I don't think many people would manage to spend more than their own salary on travel (though the group's travel budget should increase with the number of people of course). However, whose salaries are paid with the money will strongly depend on personal preferences. Some people prefer working with people who already know what they are doing and will thus hire mostly post-docs or invite colleagues for extended stays. Others might prefer having more PhD students, who require a bit more handholding, but can be set on longer projects and who aren't already stuck in their way of doing research. Personally I have seen groups with half a dozen or more PhD students and only sometimes a single post-doc, and I have seen groups with 3-4 post-docs and only a single PhD student. Both worked well in their own way. Finally one should also remark that sometimes it is more about people than about positions. If you have a really promising student in a class and some grant money coming in, you'll naturally try to recruit them as a PhD student, even if you'd normally would prefer a post-doc. Similarly, if one of your close collaborators in a different place recommends you one of their PhD students who is close to finishing, you might think about opening a post-doc position. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Further to earlier answers, note that it's not unheard of for a Mathematics department to [have an experimental laboratory](http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/lab/) that needs equipment and consumables. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: In my experience a lot of grants in pure maths don't directly award money but rather pay the salary of one person at a given level of seniority for a given amount of time. At the postdoc level one can apply for various grants that pay exactly the applicants salary for a time frame usually between 6 months and 3 years. Similarly a professor might apply for grants that pay exactly one PhD student or one postdoc. Sometimes the grant comes with an additional allowance for books or travel but this is usually tiny compared to the salary (less than 5%). So in practise there are very few if any grants that just award 100.000 dollars, they directly award the salary for say one postdoc which might end up being 100.000 dollars depending on the duration. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Let me give you a related perspective: theoretical physics. First, most individual grants aren’t in the million dollar range but probably 20 to 40 times smaller. I think the average individual grant in theoretical physics in Canada is in the $35k-$40k range. Six-figure grants are rare, although there are “team grants” or “group grants” that will fund many researchers from the same pot. In Europe some grants come with student funding earmarked. Some researchers manage to concurrently hold several grants so their net grant intake is in the 6-figure yearly but this is not that common in physics, and probably even less so in math. Most of the money goes to support students or postdocs. Some of the money goes towards conference or collaboration travel, possibly some visits by external guests and computer stuff - licences etc. In Canada there are equipment grants for larger items so basically the money is largely spent on humans or human interactions. If you are part of a large group or institute that does run a larger grant, you may have access to parts of the funds to support students or postdocs, travel, promotion etc (it depends on how the institute is organized). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Perhaps I should answer as I hold a ~£1M grant in pure mathematics. This grant is to be held over 4 years. The most pricy thing that this grant yields is overheads. I would say a bit less than half of the grant is overheads. The next most expensive things is researcher time. Despite what I thought when younger, the university does not just cost the salary, but also must cost pension contributions, insurance, raises, office costs (estate costs), etc. This tends to make my university request funds from funding bodies that are somewhere around double the amount any researcher actually gets paid. My particular grant is called a fellowship, where it not only pays for postdoctoral salary, but my time through teaching and administrative release. With this chunk of cash, I have my time for 4 years and 5 years of postdoctoral salary. Then comes travel expenses for not only me, but all of the postdoctoral researchers which adds up quickly. Also for visiting researchers to spend time here. Next there is some amount of funding for conferences, public engagement and impact work in order to disseminate the research. The consumables are simply laptops for postdocs, which is negligible compared to the staff costs. This all comes to about 10% of the grant. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/22	621	2,821	<issue_start>username_0: How to scientifically approach theories and research them as a high school student to get it published? (Given that the theory is not yet proven by anyone and may or may not be true).<issue_comment>username_1: You will need an experienced researcher to guide you. Most high school students that I know who have published had help from their parents (usually professors), or a professor who is associated with a school. An example is Intel's science competition. Have a look at the students who participate every year, their support system; e.g., mentor(s). Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As a high-school student, you are going to have three or four main difficulties, all of which will probably require the assistance of an experienced researcher. The difficulties you will encounter are: (1) finding out what is already known and published about the topic (what we call a "literature review"); (2) knowing the substantive method to use to investigate the topic; (3) if the paper involves data analysis, knowing enough about statistics to do this analysis; and (4) being able to write the resulting paper in an appropriate way for submission to a journal. All of these are hard skills, and they are usually taught over the course of a full undergraduate and then postgraduate research degree at university. It would be hard for a high school student to have skills sufficient in these areas to produce something publishable. Having said that, if you have a good and novel research idea, and you have a rough idea of how to do the research in a substantive sense, you might be able to find an experienced researcher who is willing to help you (perhaps in exchange for co-authorship or even primary authorship) of the resulting paper. Most high-school students who have published papers in academic journals have had help from researchers who are family friends or parents, and if you don't have these connections it will probably be difficult to get the required help. I recommend you start by reading some papers in academic journals in the field that contains the topic of interest to you. Browsing some articles in those journals will give you a sense of what is required to produce a published paper. If that doesn't put you off, write up the goal and methodology for your project and show it to some academics in the field to see if it makes sense, and to see if you can find a researcher interested in helping you. Bear in mind that when academic researchers collaborate with students, we are usually dealing with PhD students aged between about 24-40 years old, who already have a strong undergraduate degree in their field. Consequently, convincing a researcher to collaborate with you will require you to show an unusually high level of ability for someone your age. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/22	1,501	6,543	<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in Mathematics. I am writing research papers but I am confused with one thing: What papers should I cite? I want to know, in particular, what the criterion is for which a paper should be cited. I received a revision from a SCIE indexed journal recently. The Reviewer shared the names of 4 papers and asked me to cite them as he/she felt those papers were related to my paper. But I didn't take any information from those 4 papers which the Reviewer wanted me to cite. They just said that they are needed for literature review. I agree that those 4 papers are related to mine but there are at least 15-20 papers like those which are related in that way to my paper. I thought that if I take some information from a paper and use it in my paper, only then should that paper should be cited. Can someone please clarify this for me? Also one more question: *Is it necessary to also cite those papers which have been published when my paper was in review?* I find that during the last 10 months when my paper was in review, at least 5-6 papers appeared in my field. Is it necessary to cite them all since the content of those are someway related to my paper? I am still in my PhD days. So I want to be clear in my mind about these publishing standards. Can someone please help me out?<issue_comment>username_1: Ideally, you cite works that justify your motivation/area, aim, problem and solution. In practice, what constitute justifications vary with reviewers. Some reviewers (usually inexperienced) want a paper cited because it matches some keywords, or they are the author a paper (not ethical but happens often). Some want justifications because they never heard of X. On the other hand, if you have an experienced reviewer, given his/her wealth of knowledge, he/she may require fewer justifications or citations. In general, you do your best to cite what you think are relevant works. If the reviewers ask for more, decide for yourself whether to include them. The more critical issue is missing critical/important/seminal works. If you did a poor job at due diligence, then a reviewer will not take your work seriously. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The idea behind the literature review is to provide the reader with background on the field, what has already been done and where your work fits in. If you are getting a review that says you should cite X because it is related to your work, and there are 15-20 similar such papers, then the reviewer is indirectly saying that your literature review is incomplete. You might want to cite all 15-20 papers and give some context about how your work is related to theirs. Having said that, if you are still in your PhD days, then you have a great advantage - you can ask your supervisor, who'll be able to give you more personalized advice than anyone. Furthermore, they are probably an author too, so they should have a say in whatever you decide to do. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: > > I thought that if I take some information from a paper and use it in my paper, then only that paper should be cited. Can someone please help me to clarify it? > > > If you take information directly from another paper, that is one circumstance where you should obviously cite it. That is a sufficient but not necessary condition, and it doesn't really answer the broader question: what papers should I mention in my paper? Generally speaking, you should cite papers that are sufficiently closely related to the topic/point at hand that they will be helpful to the reader. This is a contextual decision, and it is usually informed by choices relating to the goal of your own paper, the consequent scope and depth of your literature review, etc. Most papers will begin with an introduction that "sets the scene" for what you are doing, describes the problem at hand, and discusses literature related to the problem. Sometimes you will do a systematic literature review, but even if this is not done, you will usually want to give some context that mentions other important papers relating to the problem, method, etc., that you are using. The reason to do this is that it is helpful to the reader to learn what has already been done in the field and it provides them with other sources where they can learn more about the problem, methods, etc. Papers vary substantially in the amount of detail they give on other literature; some papers give only narrow citations of major works while others give a broad literature review. In your case, the four papers suggested by the reviewer are related to your paper (you do not specify how) so the reviewer is suggesting that you should cite them in your paper at an appropriate point. Since you have identified 15-20 papers of this kind, you will need to make a decision on whether it is useful to cite them all, or just the major ones, or some selection of your own choosing. You should be guided by putting yourself in the reader's shoes --- what other works would it be helpful for them to know about while reading your paper? Since you are a PhD student, you should seek guidance from your supervisor on specifics and run your ideas by your supervisor to ensure that what you are doing is good practice in your field. The above gives some general advice, but your supervisor will be able to give more specific scrutiny to this particular case. > > Is it necessary to also cite those papers which have been published when my paper was in review? > > > Firstly, it is not necessary to cite any paper in your field simply because it exists. You should always be guided by the goal of your own paper, the desired scope of discussion of other literature, the importance and relevance of other papers, etc. For papers that have only recently been published there is the added problem that they may not have existed when you submitted your paper, or you might not yet have formed a view on the relevance/importance of new work. If your paper is already in review then you cannot change it right now, but you might get an opportunity to change its substance one you get the referee reports back (e.g., under a "revise and resubmit" scenario). Assuming you have an opportunity for revisions (beyond merely proof corrections) you can use this opportunity to add citations to new papers if you wish. Again, there is no necessity to add these new papers just because they exist, and you should be guided by what is helpful for the reader. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
2021/08/22	1,053	4,709	<issue_start>username_0: I am an early mathematics researcher. Last year I was approached by a contemporary for collaboration. We started discussing the problem with possible approaches, I read all literature related to the problem. I had some failed attempts. But it was him who eventually solved the problem. And the level of creativity from his side, never came from mine. I wanted to ask if I should back out and ask him to publish it alone?<issue_comment>username_1: I believe that if you contribute ideas towards the solution and also take an active part in writing the paper, you should be a co-author. In your case, you believe that your discussions didn't contribute to the solution. However, often false-leads are crucial steps in solving the problem- and hence your contribution was perhaps not as trivial as you think. I would suggest you to volunteer to type up the paper. That way, you shall understand the proof better, and also have a nontrivial contribution towards the final form of the paper. While typing, try to think if the proof can be "polished". Or maybe, you can get some nice corollaries of the main theorem. Or, some examples where your theorem applies. Often times, the main theorem is just the "start" of the paper- you can still get more results by applying the main theorem to various examples. This part, in my opinion, elevates a paper. Finally, don't be too harsh on yourself regarding your "contribution" as yet. You still have time to contribute more to this project. Good luck! Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me suggest a slightly different approach. Tell him that you understand all the work is his and that you don't expect co-authorship and will understand completely if he wants to do that. You could also say that you would appreciate any acknowledgement in the paper for any contributions you might have made. In other words, make a statement about your understanding, not a question. It would be good if you can keep the lines of communication open for the future. Some future collaboration might be more fruitful. --- Edited to add, based on a comment stream. This is valid, I hope, in the case in which you made no real contribution to finding the answer amongst yourselves, but not otherwise. Other answers here explore some of the subtle issues of math insight and should certainly be considered. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There is a lot more to a mathematical paper than just the new ideas. There's also the work that goes into exploring the avenues that never lead anywhere, surveying the literature, checking that the argument is correct, writing the argument down, etc. A rule of thumb that I've heard repeated multiple times is that each author should contribute at least 10% of the work done in the paper (although, in the long run, it should even out). It's perfectly possible to have this level of contribution without being the one who came up with the new ideas, so - assuming your collaborator is willing - there is nothing wrong in publishing jointly. If they do prefer to publish alone, though, you shouldn't insist. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It is very difficult to say, when working on a mathematical problem, how much each person contributed. It is only through failed attempts that one reaches a solution to any problem which isn't completely trivial. In the comments, @CaptainEmacs asked you a good question: "Did your failures contribute to your partner better understanding the problem? Or were they just abortive without real contribution?" You answer was that both things are true. But, so long as your failed attempts contributed to your partner's understanding of the problem, you certainly deserve to be a co-author. Observe that this is very much an issue of culture. These things are different between different fields. In mathematics, what you describe is usually considered enough to be a co-author. But it might also be different in different subfields of mathematics, and in different places in the world. I would suggest consulting with your PhD advisor (if you are still on good terms with them), or some other older researcher that you feel comfortable asking such questions. And then I would discuss this with your partner. I also agree with @DarthVader that it's a good idea to put it more work on the writing of the paper, to feel less "guilty" about this. But it's just the way it is; the work in joint papers is very often not divided 'equally'. To summarize: It seems to me like you very much deserve to be a co-author. I would discuss this with someone with more experience than you (perhaps your PhD advisor), and then discuss this directly with your partner. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/22	1,555	6,078	<issue_start>username_0: US public school physics PhD 1. There is a PI at my institute who is amazing. She doesn't have funds for more than her 2 current students. 2. My program is huge, and thus does not have the funds to support any PhD who doesn't get $$$ from their PI for research in the form of indefinite TA stipends. You are only ALLOWED to TA for your first 2 years. This is a huge point of concern for me: the only thing that kept me sane in my first year was teaching. I love it so much. Given 2) would approaching her again with the following preposition be a legitimate way to work with her? Working with her as her student but also working as an adjunct at a local community college? concerns I have: * this would make my PhD take longer than if I were doing research full time (although arguably more enjoyable for me given 2), not that I haven't loved my research experiences in the past, but 2-4 years without teaching sounds awful) * would I be able to (reliably, there are only a few colleges in our area/not a city) make $20-30k as an adjunct to stay on par with what I would make as a TA now? --- Edit after Buffy's points: Regrading tuition the department says: "If properly handled, PhD students do not pay tuitions, instead it is either waived, or paid by a research grant." "Tuition costs for 6 credits at the in-state rate will be charged to the research grants as students move on to research appointments " From the offer letter to the program: "In addition to the offer of admission, we are offering you a position as a Teaching Assistant, for a maximum of four semesters. Thereafter, research grants are expected to provide research assistantships with a full stipend. We also will provide you with a full-tuition scholarship for the duration of your studies." This is 2 year limit on TAing is actually rather common in larger departments nowadays.<issue_comment>username_1: Some things surprise me. A time limit on serving as a TA seems odd. If the program is "huge" they probably need a lot of TAs. A lot of undergrads take physics, for example. Also, if you aren't a TA (or RA, or such) then you will have to pay tuition. Even at State universities it isn't cheap anymore for residents of the state. Then, there is the question of how much you can earn as an adjunct. I think you are overestimating it unless you do it full time - with no time or energy left over for your studies and research. Then subtract the tuition. Many adjunct positions don't come with benefits such as health care. A full time position at a community college would pay more and possibly make it feasible, though difficult. As you present it, it doesn't seem feasible to me, but you may be wrong about the TA limitations. Most places will let you TA throughout your studies and will even make it more "interesting" later on, with responsibility for a course. To make the same as an adjunct as you do as a TA is feasible, but the commitment is vastly different. Teaching 10-15 courses per year vs helping out or teaching two or three. Think of the time (and travel) issues. I suggest that you look at other options and consider the trade-offs. --- In thinking about why a university would impose a two year limit on TA positions, the only thing I can think of is that they have accepted far too many graduate students for the size of the institution. That seems like a red herring if it is the case. When I was a doctoral student (math - long long ago) the ratio of doctoral students to regular faculty was about 2-1. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This would be difficult. It would be easier and more profitable to do a work study position in your school, most likely. Most Adjuncts make low wages per course. You would likely need to take on 7-10 courses during the year to make the salary you described. This is not trivial. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Ack, this is a not-so-good situation. As in other answers and comments: no you will not be able to make a reasonable income from piecework teaching. It's not viable. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: > > Given 2) would approaching her again with the following preposition be a legitimate way to work with her? > > > Well, sure, it’s “legitimate”, and you are (by the sound of it) a grown-up and capable of deciding what’s good for you. But what you are suggesting sounds pretty exploitative to me (in the sense that you are offering yourself up to be exploited). Trying to put myself in the shoes of the professor, I don’t think I would feel very comfortable about being a party to such a scheme, knowing that that makes me a beneficiary of this type of exploitation, even if it was clear that you are entering into it willingly, and even if I did find the idea of working with you appealing in general. What I would end up actually doing in such a situation, I have no idea. Probably have a stern talk with my department chair and complain about how we are treating our grad students, and ask for their help in figuring out a more sensible solution, at the very least. > > would I be able to (reliably, there are only a few colleges in our area/not a city) make $20-30k as an adjunct to stay on par with what I would make as a TA now? > > > I don’t know a whole lot about these sorts of things. But going on what I do know and the general stereotypes about adjunct work (which are certainly based on some kernels of truth at least), “reliably” and “adjunct” do not belong in the same sentence. A couple more things that come to mind: 1. Maybe one idea that comes to mind is to try to setup a co-advising arrangement where you work under this professor but also find a second professor interested in working with you and willing/able to provide the funding. The first professor herself might be able to help set this up if she wants to work with you, so you can ask her about it. 2. I’m in a math department and we occasionally allow graduate students from the physics department to TA for math classes. Ask around if that’s an option where you are. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/22	628	2,822	<issue_start>username_0: Would getting an undergrad degree in mathematics hurt my chances of of getting into a CS PHD program? Are there statistics on admissions rate by major online? Edit: in the us<issue_comment>username_1: I doubt the statistics would help you much. But a switch from math to CS is possible with just a BS/BA. You will have time to catch up on some things. I'll assume that you can program, but you probably want to take a few electives in CS if they are open to you. Data Structures and Algorithms is the most important but a couple of additional theoretical courses would help. Database Theory, Operating Systems, for example. And look to getting good letters of recommendation from both math and CS professors. Double majors are a possibility in some places, but a math major with a CS minor would probably give you everything essential. Note that both math and CS are a lot about abstraction. The mathematical way of thinking is a benefit in CS. Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Mathematics knowledge is very useful in many areas such as machine learning, pattern recognition, artificial intelligence, etc. Especially for basic scientific work. There may be differences according to countries, universities, institutes. For this reason, you can increase your chances by carefully examining the required skills in the applications and by correspondence with the advisors. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I know several people who have been admitted into strong CS PhD programs with only undergraduate training in math. Don't accept this answer as I don't have numbers/statistic to back it up, but qualitatively I will say the following: If you are pursuing theoretical computer science, math is definitely an acceptable undergrad to come from (maybe even preferred in some departments). Obviously it helps to have more discrete mathematical courses and things closer to TCS (ex: automata theory, complexity theory, algorithms etc...) If (and I doubt this is the case but I dont want to make assumptions) you are interested in entering the applied side of things, you will probably hurt your chances if only carrying mathematical training. Math classes will teach you to handle proofs and be creative with abstract thinking. They will not teach you how to work comfortably with systems programming, or architect software well, or build effective distributed systems Etc... and any competent applied CS researcher knows this. That said you can always start trying to acquire this experience (maybe even do some research as an undergrad in an REU or similar program) to beef up you application. There's also no hard requirement to start a PhD immediately after graduating undergrad. Take a year or 2 or 10 if thats what you need to make the transition. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/22	3,299	14,465	<issue_start>username_0: Summary: Students who have never taken a particular course often can get "[credit by exam](https://www.lanecc.edu/copps/documents/credit-examination-cbe)". However, it's extremely common for credit by exam to be disallowed to students who have previously taken and failed a course. For example, see the policy of [the University of Mary Washington](https://academics.umw.edu/registrar/ferpa-policies-procedures-services/credit-by-examination/). Is there pedagogical reason for that different treatment of students who never took class vs failed the same class? --- In my own experience, I have seen way too many undergraduate students that I thought could have passed if they had had two or three more weeks to study. They seem like an ideal use case for credit by exam: * Fail the course. * Get some extra tutoring over the break. * Sit credit by exam at the start of the next semester and earn passing marks. * ??? * ~~Profit~~ Graduate! This argument applies especially for lower-division undergraduate courses (e.g. Chemistry I, Introduction to Psychology, Survey of US History, etc.) that are especially commonly offered in credit by exam format. These courses typically require a relatively shallow level of mastery of a wide body of knowledge, which can be easier to test for on exams rather than projects or term papers. Question: Are there pedagogical reasons for not allowing students who have previously failed a course to sit a credit by exam examination while allowing students who have never taken the course to do so? One obvious argument could be that credit by exam assessments may not be as rigorous as actually completing the full course (attending all lectures, completing all homework, participating in class discussions, etc.). If that is true, then I really wonder why credit by exam should even be offered at all - it doesn't make sense to single out some students who are allowed to follow an abbreviated path and others who are not. To be clear, I'm not asking for a link to your institution's credit by exam policy nor am I looking for counterexamples (universities where students can get credit by exam for courses they have previously taken and failed). What I'm looking for is a pedagogical argument for having this policy. In other words, if I was in charge of setting credit by exam policy at my institution (I'm not), why would I want to go to the trouble of barring certain students from taking advantage of it rather than just saying that anyone who can pass the exams deserves the credit? In response to comments, I am asking from the perspective of the USA. * The 2 camps: I've noticed a battle raging here in the US between camps over whether degrees ought to be about competence or completion. The competency camp claims that requiring formal study is unfair to those who can't afford to "go to college" but could learn on their own or at low-cost, unaccredited community learning centers. The completionist camp argues that without the "these hallowed halls" experience (being fed scraps of learning by social superiors, microwaving another bowl of ramen before rushing to another 7 AM lecture in an unheated lecture hall in the middle of a New England snowstorm, etc.), degrees are meaningless. * There are also curriculum control issues: In competency models, curricula are set by administrators, accreditors, or regulators and professors are expected to "teach to the test". On the other hand, competency supporters will respond that in the completion model, there is no guarantee that the professor will adhere to any standards at all. We're getting a bit far from the original question, but a big reason for the competence model is the rampant credentialism we've seen here. With professions increasingly requiring a bachelor's degree or even a master's just to get in at the ground level, there are widespread calls to give these degrees to anyone who can demonstrate that they can do the job. Whether this is good or bad is beyond the scope of this question.<issue_comment>username_1: Short answer: A short exam cannot test mastery of all the skills taught during a course. When such exams are offered, they are normally offered only to students who have successfully completed an equivalent course; in these cases, the exam is used only to "spot-check" a rough equivalence rather than to rigorously probe all the course aims. Longer answer... The entire higher education system is largely based on completion instead of (or at least, in addition to) competence. Many people who have never been to college are more knowledgeable than degree holders, but this by itself does not entitle them to a degree. Maybe it should be otherwise, but that’s how it is. Given this, it is self-consistent that test-passing in lieu of course-completion is largely restricted to lower-level courses that the student has completed elsewhere. The key fact in these cases is that the student has already successfully completed an equivalent course. It is not that passing the exam replaces completing the course; rather passing the exam is merely confirmation that the completed course was sufficiently similar to the equivalent college course. This is the theory at least; I realize that some colleges decide to save time and avoid arguments by just accepting exam scores without checking transcript/syllabi (the number of students who can pass such an exam without completing an equivalent course is probably very small in any case). Now, you ask for a pedagogical reason why students shouldn’t be allowed to test out of courses. For some classes, it’s true that no short exam could possibly replicate the experience of taking a class. For example: laboratory sessions, research papers, and discussions are important and cannot be replicated in a short written exam. Similarly, in some upper-division science courses, the homework is much harder than the exams. Indeed, it's possible to pass the final exam but fail the course because of bad performance on homework, discussion, lab, etc. In “skills” classes like writing or algebra, however, I agree that disallowing credit by exam is difficult to justify from a pedagogical standpoint. Finally, you raise an interesting point about final exams: why not allow students to take or retake final exams weeks after the course ends? Setting aside the concept of “placement exams,” it seems like courses that require a final exam do not need to schedule the exam within days of the course ending. I can think of no pedagogical reason against this, but it would be a headache from a scheduling point of view. Further, it would in practice encourage / require students to study during their break periods, which may have deleterious effects. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: A university degree is not simply a certification that the student has learned the content of some courses. It should also indicate that the student is a responsible person and a good citizen. A student who takes a course and chooses to wait until after they failed the course to learn the content appears to be an irresponsible person. Therefore, students who have failed courses should not receive credit by exam for the same course. One could reasonably argue that there should be some exceptions when the student has failed for a reason beyond their control. Students who have failed a course often have some other procedure available to them besides credit by exam; for instance, they may opt to receive an incomplete grade which can be corrected later. This might be better than credit by exam. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: This is probably a good policy to implement. There are very often cases of students, without any formally equivalent course, using credit by exam to move up (ex: scoring a 5 on an AP Exam without having taken the corresponding AP class (i did this personally at least a dozen times)), in principle we should expect a higher level of competency of someone who failed a course and then scored high on a test, than someone who never took the course and passed the test. The latter might have just gotten lucky, the former at least was DEFINITELY exposed to the entire curriculum (although they failed to display sufficient amounts of it the first time they got tested). In reality, of course most institutions like to categorize people prematurely and so assume the first person is still incompetent while giving benefit of the doubt that the latter might be a prodigy/wunderkind. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I don't think there are pedagogical reasons operating against your proposal, so much as there are accreditation reasons. One major problem with the practice you propose is that it essentially gives students in courses a second opportunity (and possibly more) to attempt their "final exam" to get credit for the course. This essentially means that all courses then involve two attempts at the final examination. Moreover, if there is no limitation on repeated use of "credit by exam" then a student could ---in principle--- continue to attempt examinations until they pass and are credited for the course. This has negative implications for the reputation of the university as an institution that assesses and accredits academic knowledge. As others have pointed out, universities will generally impose quite strict requirements on giving credit for their courses. In most cases, universities don't credit a student with completion of their own course at all; they just waive the corresponding degree requirement and allow the student to do an alternative set of courses for the degree (e.g., substitute a course that is usually compulsory with an elective). This is usually reserved for cases where a student has already acquired the requisite knowledge from another university (through a course with similar coverage) or through demonstrable professional practice. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There are various exam systems in the world. In our system it has traditionally been the case that you may repeat the exam within the designated exam period if you fail your first try, up to two times (if there are free spots exam terms scheduled. Only if you fail those, you have to retake the class. This should cover those cases that "students that I thought could have passed if they had had two or three more weeks to study.". If your systems allows only a single try and you are doomed, then credit by exam sounds like a good alternative as the student indeed may have just needed a more time. If you are honestly convinced about that, I see no pedagogical reasons in allowing such an exams and require all the coursework again. Or the student may have needed a just quick lesson in how to study at a university. True story: I have never needed to systematically study at the high school and even my first uni exam (physics I) went easily. But then the calculus I came and what I thouth was being reasonably prepared was actually a disaster (O was also a bit ill). On Monday I got my quick leson and failed miserably my first attempt. I started to really study the proofs hard and to really do the exercises from the book. On Friday I passed with an A. I later gradueted with distinctions, later got a PhD, later got an academic job. In the single attempt only syatem I might have easily been marked as a unperspective black sheep with a transcript with no chance of a grad school. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: A test-out is similar to transfer credit. It's a way for new students who clearly know the material to skip to the next course. They may be missing a few things and need to work to catch up, but that's understood; and generally only the better students test-out anyway, so can handle it. In a sense, a test-out is saying this person is not our typical incoming fresh-person. If they took this course than our best guess is they'd be bored senseless 95% of the time. But if a student has taken the class and failed we know that's not true. We have a pretty good idea they aren't ready to move on. Even if they somehow passed the test-out; we have much, much more evidence to the contrary. It seems I'm overly relying on the potential test-out class being a prereq for another, but we purposely make it that way. Our real test of whether you learned Calc-I on your own isn't the test-out, it's whether you pass our Calc-II. In fact, our most popular test-out was only gave you credit after you passed the next class in the sequence. It works from the student's point of view, for the same reasons. A well-run class is easy to pass. Sure, it takes a semester and hours of homework and tests, but given that, it's not too tough to scrape out a C-. And with a low passing grade you should be a little scared of the next class. If you actually failed the class -- got a F -- you didn't learn it. And if you didn't learn it after hearing the lecture, talking about it, doing the homework, and taking the test directly based on what you just did; over and over; then you're not going to learn it on your own in 2 weeks. The only way not to horribly fail the next course is by retaking this one. Terrible analogy incoming: it's like speed-dates, coffee-dates and the goal: a night-time date. You might have a speed-date go really well and agree on a night-time date. More likely you'll go on a coffee date. If that's not great, you might get another one. But there's no way you'll have a bad coffee date and argue "I messed that up, but let's have a speed-date that might lead to a proper night-time one". They've already met you. Then an administrative reason: test-outs and transfer credit are indicated on your transcript. It's a way for the school to tell employers "if this guy sucks, you can see they only took 3 classes from us and transferred in the rest" (true story). If someone "passed" a test-out after failing the class then how would we mark it? I suppose as test-out credit, but also keeping the F? Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: A school may give a student who has never taken a course the chance to get credit for it by passing a special exam because the school has no evidence that the student is not competent. A school may refuse a student who has failed a course the chance to get credit for it by passing a special exam because the school has evidence that the student is not competent. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/22	1,359	5,683	<issue_start>username_0: There is a leading conference that will take place in Jan 2022. Graduate students are encouraged to present a poster about their thesis work, however, the slots are limited so a recommendation letter from the advisor is needed to ensure that the student has made a significant progress in their research and is highly competent. I have asked my advisor three times and he told me that he is going to send it but he did not send them anything. I feel like he doesn't want to send for me the recommendation letter. In the last few months I went to three workshops in the field and made new connections and I felt like he doesn't like it at all. The deadline is very soon. I just have a feeling that he does not intend to send it "based on some history" and he is going to tell me "I forgot", he has done it before with students. So, I am assuming here that he won't send it, I am looking for anything I can do. I am hoping maybe someone who has been in my situation before can give me an idea on what to do. Should I give up on the conference? Or should I contact the conference committee? If so what should I tell them? I don't want to ask my advisor again. I am in the final phase of writing the thesis.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't understand why you say he "won't" when he said he would. You can't also demand to set his schedule. You would be foolish not to remind him of the deadline as it gets close, but if there is no reason for it to be sent "right this minute" then you would be wise to back off. You aren't helping yourself by being a pest. Your "feeling" that he doesn't want to isn't based on anything you say here. But a reminder a week before it is actually due would be good. Just a reminder, not a complaint. And don't contact the conference. That seems very unwise if it gets back to your advisor. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There's a few days to go. It would be appropriate to remind your supervisor that the deadline is in a few days. You could also say that you realise he is very busy and ask whether it would be helpful if you wrote a draft for him. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I had similar problems with my adviser - he would not do things even if he had to agreed to them in writing. I fell for this a couple of times and then just assumed (mostly correctly) that he wouldn't come through on his promises. In the end I asked one of the other lecturers I worked with if they could provide references as my "de-facto" adviser (as they were much more familiar with my work than my nominal 'adviser') and using sufficiently vague phrasing about their role this usually worked. So, try asking someone else, but if there is no-one you can ask, you should just forget about this conference and get on with writing up and moving on. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Do you trust your advisor? If yes, they will send the letter. Many people send their letter on the last day, or at least close to it. Not only students work more efficiently under pressure. From the advisor point of view, I believe it makes sense to tell people when one will send the letter (e.g. on the last day), and tell people when one wants a reminder (in case one does). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: The tip I've heard every now and then when asking for recommendation letters is, whoever you're asking them to, give them a model. And by "model" it could be something copied from the internet (and do tell the writer it is a model from the web). Alternatively, write yourself the letter so that your advisor only needs to sign it. And tell him "if you want, you can just sign this". Writing this stuff is boring and demotivating enough that half academics I've met would procrastinate doing so as much as they could, so remove what is possibly the reason he's dodging the problem. When dealing with very busy people, there is a big chance that they will never solve your problems for you, but rather only approve or decide on the spot based on the options you give them. That being said, some conferences could as well be a waste of time, so maybe you should be focusing on your thesis? If my first suggestion proves unfruitful, you might ask the advisor for honest feedback on why he doesn't want you to go to the conference. Maybe "somebody told me you believe X reason and thinks I shouldn't go, why didn't you just tell me?" would be a fair gambit. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: First thing to do is to make sure you made this recommendation letter as easy as possible for for your advisor. * Make sure that he has the deadline in writing (if someone tells me something is due by date, I'm sure to forget. If I have a written trace of the deadline, I might make it). * Make sure that he has the address to send the letter to (or a link to upload the letter somewhere or whatever the procedure is for your conference) * Give him your CV and a list of elements that he could mention in the letter (e.g. you worked on X project where you demonstrated Y skills). He might not have all the things you did off the top of his head, but a list may help him think of things to write. Letters of recommendation are gruesome to write, and are not top priority tasks for those who write them. Reduce the overhead on this task for your advisor. Next, prepare a contingency plan. Sometimes it is possible to have more than one letter of recommendation sent in. If this is the case, contact another professor and ask them to write you a recommendation. This way, if your advisor pulls through, there is no harm done. But if they forget, then you still have a recommendation on your record. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/23	537	2,450	<issue_start>username_0: I am reviewing conference submissions (specialized branch of engineering). One of them, although technically more interesting than some of the other submissions, is a typical case of "salami publishing". When looking into existing research on the topic during my review, I found two already published papers by the same authors on the same topic. The research in the published papers was more advanced: they cover method A tried on substrate B and successfully transferred to substrate C, while the conference abstract is only about method A on substrate B. Is it OK to reject an (otherwise very good) entry because of preexisting publications on the same research? Should I inform the conference chair or just reject?<issue_comment>username_1: Note that you, a reviewer, don't accept or reject. The editor(s) or conference program chairs have that power, not you. You can recommend rejection, but say why. The journal may or may not be as sensitive to the issue as you are. If the paper shows no "interesting" results or simply recapitulates things the author (or another party) has already published, say that. Insufficient novelty in a paper is grounds for rejection, but it is the editor's choice. Just give them the information they need to do their job. The other reviewers will hopefully do the same. Hopefully you aren't the only reviewer. Also note that what is "salami slicing" is a judgement call. To say that that alone is sufficient for rejection puts your personal preferences above what might be good for the conference. It would seem to result in a program that is actually less technically interesting, to use your words. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: To recommend that a paper should not be accepted to a conference or journal because it is not novel enough relative to the existing literature is one of the most standard reasons for making such a recommendation. The fact that the lack of novelty arises out of prior publications by the same author is irrelevant. The motivation of the author for trying to publish a paper that improves on the state of the art only in a marginal, incremental way is also irrelevant. This isn’t about salami slicing. You don’t need to inform the conference chair or anyone else, just apply the same criteria for whether to recommend accepting the paper that you apply to any other paper: novelty, importance, etc. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
2021/08/23	527	2,222	<issue_start>username_0: I've written my MSc thesis and my supervisors and myself think that the results we got are worth writing an article. Of course, we cite my original thesis in the article to avoid self-plagiarism issues. However, it seems to be in direct contradiction with the requirement that some conference enforce, which is that the authors must be anonymous at the time of submitting the article (no names, refering to their work using the third person, etc...). Not only am I quite unaware of the extent up to which an accepted paper can be modified (is it possible to include "This paper has been derived from XXX's MSc thesis" once it is accepted?), but I am also unsure about how ethical it is to submit a paper without mentioning this. What is the ethical way of conduct in this case?<issue_comment>username_1: Removing "This paper is based on XXX's MSc thesis" would be part of anonymising a submission for double-blind review. The edits made for anonymization purposes are typically undone after acceptance, so this part is not a problem. I would presume that the conference chairs can see who has made which submission. A referee who spots that the paper and the MSc thesis have significant overlap would point something like "If XXX is amongst the authors, accept; otherwise this looks plagiarized." whereupon the conference chairs can accept the paper. If you want to be sure that the conference chairs notice, add a note/cover letter. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Write your paper just as you would do it without the double-blind review process in mind. Cite all relevant sources (inlcuding your own thesis) and then, before submission, anonymize the paper. That means (temporarily) replacing all possible identifiers of yourself or your institution with "Anonymous, 20XX" or "this reference has been omitted to maintain the integrity of the review process" or similar expressions. More info can be found e.g. [here](https://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-and-medicine/policies/double-blind-peer-review-guidelines). This is perfectly normal, no-one will object, and after the review (and before publication), you simply de-anonymize everything. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/23	699	3,042	<issue_start>username_0: I have recently started to appreciate the importance of illustrations and figures in scientific publications. Be it a visual abstract, a visual TOC, or part of a poster or a presentation, I always find a nice illustration to be quite catchy. Because of this, I want to put in some effort and learn what goes into preparing these illustrations. Of course, I have the usual problem: I was never good in arts, and I can't really put my thought into a visual illustration, nor make the eventual idea into reality. Since I am working in theoretical physics I think I also have a harder time than some other sciences - the objects that I am working with are usually mathematical objects and proofs, and I can't really draw an equation, can I? In contrast to illustrations, however, I've spent quite a lot of time on learning how to create good plots. In the case of plots I always had clear guidelines: from a given data, create a visualization that follows some basic principles with color scheming and choosing markers; using then the right software it's not hard to create visually appealing graphs. There's very little creativity involved in this process though. Are there any similar "guidelines" for creating illustrations not based on qualitative data, rather abstract ideas? Is there maybe a book and/or a course that I might take? I understand that scientific art and communication is a field in itself, however I am hoping that if I put in the time and effort, then, using the right tools, I could at least be mediocre in preparing illustrations. Or is creativity a pre-requisite for all of it?<issue_comment>username_1: Removing "This paper is based on XXX's MSc thesis" would be part of anonymising a submission for double-blind review. The edits made for anonymization purposes are typically undone after acceptance, so this part is not a problem. I would presume that the conference chairs can see who has made which submission. A referee who spots that the paper and the MSc thesis have significant overlap would point something like "If XXX is amongst the authors, accept; otherwise this looks plagiarized." whereupon the conference chairs can accept the paper. If you want to be sure that the conference chairs notice, add a note/cover letter. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Write your paper just as you would do it without the double-blind review process in mind. Cite all relevant sources (inlcuding your own thesis) and then, before submission, anonymize the paper. That means (temporarily) replacing all possible identifiers of yourself or your institution with "Anonymous, 20XX" or "this reference has been omitted to maintain the integrity of the review process" or similar expressions. More info can be found e.g. [here](https://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-and-medicine/policies/double-blind-peer-review-guidelines). This is perfectly normal, no-one will object, and after the review (and before publication), you simply de-anonymize everything. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/24	844	3,454	<issue_start>username_0: Recently I became aware that a journal is recruiting a board member. The subject matter is very close to my research background and I am very interested in the position. I have a PhD in the field (with an active academic email) but am currently working in the industry (my current affiliation is non-academic). Given this, is that still possible to apply for the position? I did some research and never saw a non-academic board member: is that a no-no?<issue_comment>username_1: Decent journals will care less about where specifically someone works, but what their qualifications are in a field. From the perspective of a journal, a good editor will be someone who: * Knows the area well, i.e., knows what is in the literature * Actually works in the area, i.e., has practical experience * Is known as an expert to the researchers in the area, i.e., has the stature to make decisions and have these accepted by others in the community as based in knowledge. So, if you are an expert in a field, and if that is easily recognizable by your peers, then I see no reason why you wouldn't be a reasonable candidate to serve as an editor. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: > > ... is that still possible to apply for the position? > > > It's certainly possible to apply; the worst that can happen is you'd be rejected. If there is a requirement to hold a current academic post at a certain level (e.g. professor, lecturer...) then I would think this would be stated in the call for applications, and I assume it isn't. Even if this was stated as a requirement, if your other qualifications are sufficiently good I think they should at least not immediately reject you just for not fulfilling every stated requirement. And if they do immediately reject you, it would probably mean there are a lot of well-qualified applicants and they don't have time to consider all of them, in which case your chances wouldn't be great even if you did hold an academic post. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, it's possible. [Example from Taylor and Francis](https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/koni-callforeditor/). They are looking for: > > * Someone who is active in the community with strong personal networks > * Confidence to engage with authors and researchers to solicit the highest quality submissions > * Strong organizational skills to ensure that submissions are handled in a timely manner > * Previous editing experience, e.g. as an Associate Editor or Guest Editor would be advantageous, but not essential > * The ability to foster positive working relationships with colleagues such as Associate Editors > > > Which does not include "is currently affiliated with a university". Here's [another example from Oxford University Press](https://isqua.org/images/Journal/IJQHC_Communications_DE_Role_Description.pdf): > > At least five years' experience as a senior academic and or research professional, with a recognised and demonstrated standard of excellence in the following areas: > > > 1. An established track record in Health Services research, Improvement Science, > Implementation Science or Patient Safety research or practice > 2. Experience as an in editorial role of a scientific or academic journal > 3. Experience as a reviewer of papers submitted to scientific or academic journa > > > You again don't need to be an academic, but you do need to have spent five years in research. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/24	1,112	4,657	<issue_start>username_0: I went to do my postdoc (organic chemistry) in ICCAS Beijing, although I also had offers from other places. As soon as I arrived there, I was informed the professor had many unsubmitted works. After a lot of thought I stayed there because I had a good fellowship and the quality of the work impressed me (probably a wrong decision). I worked really hard for more than 2 years and completed a work (I thought) after which I had to leave for some family reasons. I wrote the manuscript and S.I and sent it to my professor but he is yet to publish the work. He always says he is very busy and some works needed to be done. I also suggested to perform any further experiments in PhD guides lab. However he does not do anything, publishing his PhD students work because he had to. And now he is saying- "very sorry" for the delay but still not doing anything. In the mean time I checked with many senior colleagues, all of them agreed the work is of good quality and should be published as soon as possible. I sent the work to my professor in early 2018 now its 2021. Should I try to publish it on my own keeping him as a coauthor? I was waiting till now because the issue of "recommendation". But, now it seems to me, my career in chemistry is over and want to publish the work for validation only. what should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: First, I don't understand why it is the responsibility of your professor to publish your work. Perhaps this is a local requirement, but it seems odd. Second, you can't just add someone as an author without both their proper participation and their agreement. Normally, though, if the work is yours then you can submit it. If it is joint work then all authors must agree, but any of them can actually do the submission. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm sure a busy prof who has no time to write a paper covering your work would welcome the opportunity to have someone else write it. Doing so isn't simply a matter of writing it and sending it in with the prof's name on it, but handing the prof a manuscript, asking for edits, revising, ... Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You are asking them to devote not insignificant effort to what is clearly fairly low on their priority list. Yes, they've agreed to that, yes, it's long past due it goes one way or another... But some people are just terrible at time management (including myself). If that prof is anything like myself, don't read much into it - it's not malice or anything, it's just every time you remember to address that there's something even more urgent and important waiting in the backlog. And working on writing, while can be done quickly by an experienced person, requires a particular state of mind. Getting into that state of mind is valuable. And honestly, if someone walked up to me and said "here, I've done some research, all you have is to publish it and you can have all the credit" - why'd I accept? It's not helping me further my own research and takes away valuable resources. If you actually want it published at this point, handle it yourself. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Publish it on your own. You only have one life to live, so stop worrying about what your professor might think. You're not doing anything wrong. You've worked so hard and that deserves recognition. Don't be ashamed to shine. So go ahead and shine! Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: It is important to quantify whether your ex-PI has done enough to justify a coauthorship, or whether they should be placed in the acknowledgements. To be a coauthor, your ex-PI must fulfil all four of the following criteria by the Vancouver Convention: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4. Agree 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. Some journals and some universities have variations on these. You will note that, actually, PI's should not qualify for authorships at all much of the time. I would suggest looking at point 1 closely. Did your PI make substantial contributions there? Did they make a substantial contribution to the conception of the study, data acquisition (i.e. lab work), analysis or interpretation? If they did not, then points 2-4 resolve themselves, because they are dependent upon 1. Upvotes: 0
2021/08/24	884	3,932	<issue_start>username_0: I am Dutch, but have only studied in the Netherlands for my undergraduate degree. I am now applying to assistant professorships. The places where I have been for my PhD and afterwards were quite relaxed; essentially there was not a worry in the world. Obviously that changes as you get loaded with more and more responsibilities in a faculty job, but that is not what my question is about. From the popular media, I get the impression that Dutch academia is tough: pressure to publish, pressure to get grants, internal political games, etc. Is this indeed the case? How does it compare to other countries in Europe? How should I weigh this into the equation when applying for assistant professorship?<issue_comment>username_1: I think this question cannot be answered with a clear answer, but I will try to help because I think my experience may be useful: I am from The Netherlands and got my MSc there. My PhD and Postdoc experience was in France (2 universities) and the UK (2 universities). * Cultures vary per university, not only per country * Political games are everywhere * Pressure to publish and to get grants is worldwide * If anything, I think there are less political games in The Netherlands compared to most other European countries, but I may be biased a little. You should probably be happy with an assistant professorship anywhere: they are hard to get throughout Europe, even with an excellent CV and publication record, although (obviously) positions in less prestigious universities are less competitive. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm an assistant professor in the Netherlands with previous experiences in other European countries. I fully agree with everything that @username_1 writes in his answer. I can especially emphasize the point that the culture between different universities and even departments in the same university can vary a lot. Additional points: 1. Hierarchies in departments can be particularly "pyramid-like". In particular, the term "assistant professor" is often taken more literally than in other countries, and it's quite common that people stay at the tenured assistant professor level for their whole career. One aspect is that assistant professors often cannot supervise their own PhD students, but need the formal involvement of a full professor who gets the main credit for the supervision. 2. On the positive side, the overall funding situation seems to be particularly nice compared to other countries, especially with regard to the direct flow of money from the country to the universities. For example, the newly hired assistant professors at my department got a package with a PhD student included, which I have not seen in any other countries. 3. The teaching year is relatively long compared to other countries. There is hardly any break between fall and spring semester, and with about 6 weeks, the summer break is relatively short as well. Many professors take 3 or 4 weeks of summer vacation, which can give the impression that things are particularly relaxed. Overall, if you find a position in a good place, you can absolutely have a very positive experience. As a tenure-tracker, I benefit from a very comfortable teaching load (20% in the first three years!). My tenure criteria are very clear and quantified, which reduces the potential for arbitrariness, and I have a department head who's a genuinely good person. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: From my subjective experience the Netherlands does very well in genuinely trying to find the best applicant for the position advertised. There are less situations of say a generic postdoc advertisement but internally it is already decided that the position will go to professor X's lab regardless of quality of applications or even positions that are publicly advertised although in practice it is already decided who is going to get it. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/24	2,774	11,743	<issue_start>username_0: My BSc dissertation has recently been accepted for publication in the proceedings of a small conference. My supervisor has co-author credit as his assistance was naturally instrumental. While I'm been working a career, my supervisor has very kindly been shopping the paper around for publication and has finally landed a hit here. He's been leading the charge all the way towards publication. We were just discussing the presentation, and he sent me a file marked "Final". It contained my original paper, now with a third person as co-author. I asked him who this person is; I assumed that they were perhaps another professor or lecturer, or maybe another student who'd contributed something new. The response I got was: "He's the guy paying the conference fee. That's sadly how research works in real life." I was never informed of this third person when the paper was submitted, and it was submitted with their name included. My understanding is that they have contributed nothing further to the paper. How do I stand in this situation ethically? Should I withdraw? Is this normal?<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, you are fine. The actions weren't yours. You are being used, I'm afraid, and your professor has an ethical problem. "Sadly" is exactly right and I hope they are wrong, even in a narrow sense, but it isn't a widespread practice. But if your advisor is willing to do such things for a bit of money, I'd suggest you bite your tongue so that you don't bring down the wrath of the powers that be on your own head. What is real life is that you have to occasionally deal with unethical people and sometimes have to just protect yourself to advance your career. Sorry you got stuck in this swamp. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I can’t advise you on what to do, since you are the person who will be living with the consequences of any action you decide to take. It is your decision to make how to deal with the situation. I’ll just say this: if I heard a year or two from now that one of the people applying to my department’s graduate program was the person who famously exposed the money-for-authorship scandal at University of X by writing that viral blog post in late August 2021, in which they cited the immortal line “He's the guy paying the conference fee. That's sadly how research works in real life” from their adviser’s email and quoted the full unredacted email, you would be number 1 on my list of people I’d recommend to my department to accept.\* And you would be number 1 on my list of people I’d want to mentor, and people I’d want to help have a successful academic career. This is not normal. It’s corruption, pure and simple, and would not be considered remotely acceptable in any part of academia I’m familiar with. Well, assuming you had decent potential to succeed in a mathematics graduate program, of course. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Should you withdraw? No. Should you have been consulted before submission? Yes, but sadly it's common for senior academics not to properly consult undergraduates and other junior scientists about submissions for publication. Is this ethical? In some fields, crediting the people who got the grant money to do the science as authors is common practice regardless of their further involvement. The argument is that getting the money takes time and effort and the science can't be done without it. Getting published is a necessary part of science and publication fees can be significant. I would count this as dubious rather than clearly unethical, but - and I can't emphasise this enough - it depends on field. Some fields have very narrow views of authorship, others have very broad views. Reactions from people outside your field usually throw more heat than light. Finally, I note your framing is incorrect. Your supervisor did not accept money for authorship; they agreed to add the author in return for them paying something for the paper's publication. Your supervisor isn't getting any money from this, and will get minimal benefit from this extra paper, especially compared to how much you benefit. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Contact the journal editor (confidentially) =========================================== What you describe sounds very problematic, even after you tried to discuss the situation with your advisor. It sounds like you have already tried asking your advisor to clarify the situation, but his response was evasive, in that he did not confirm what (if anything) the 3rd party contributed in the capacity of co-author. Hence, as you say: > > My understanding is that they have contributed nothing further to the paper. > > > You should try to ascertain whether that is the case by analysing the manuscript very carefully. Read it word for word, and check whether there is anything in there that you do not recognise as coming from yourself or from your advisor. Of course, there is a (small) possibility that the advisor did involve the 3rd party in the process of making contributions that you believed to have come solely from your advisor, but if that were the case, your advisor should have mentioned to you that he had been involving a 3rd party at the time. Personally, my view is that a person on the author list must be able to present on and answer detailed questions about all aspects (albeit allowing for some division of labour or specialisation, provided that everyone understands what is going on) of the work encapsulated in the paper (including exploratory work, investigative stages, and methodology), and it sounds like this 3rd party cannot do that. So, my advice would be to contact the journal editor (confidentially) and explain the situation, forwarding all relevant correspondence and drafts in your possession. The editor, who should be familiar with what constitutes authorship and who should have the authority to ask tough questions, will then be able to investigate the issue properly and come to a determination of whether your advisor acted appropriately (based on the information you have given, the answer is probably "no", but it is difficult to be sure without seeing the details and asking tough questions of all parties concerned). Of course, once you have taken the step of going to the editor, you (and your 'co-authors') will probably have to abide by whatever decision he/she makes. Depending on the details of the case, possible outcomes include: * the editor retracts the article due to academic malpractice; or * the editor publishes the article with just two authors (you and your advisor), and asks you to mention the 3rd party to the 'Acknowledgements' section instead; or * the editor is satisfied with the explanations given by your advisor and publishes the article with all three parties as authors. You should be prepared for the possibility that this will result in your "burning bridges" with your advisor. But to be honest, that might be a good thing (if it turns out that your advisor were corrupt); better to cut your losses now than to be tainted by corruption and blighted by toxic working relationships. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Adding a co-author purely because they paid for something is definitely inconsistent with academic standards. The policies of journals and professional societies make that clear and can be cited. What you can do is add a grant number in the acknowledgments, at the end of text. That way the sponsor can list your work as part of what has been accomplished with the funding, without being a co-author on the paper. That would be the proper solution; everyone will get credit for what they contributed, and if you insist you will prevail. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: 1. Is this normal? No, and it should not be. 2. Should I withdraw? No. Presumably the results are still valid. 3. How do I stand in this situation ethically? You yourself have done nothing wrong: it is your supervisor that is being unethical. This is NOT how science is done these days, and thankfully this kind of bribery is rare. There isn’t much you can do yourself except carefully consider if you want to continue collaborating with this person. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Well, first, selling authorships for a conference publication is like selling your soul for a hamburger. Nobody needs a conference publication that bad, though on the plus side, it's a conference so most likely nobody will ever care. Second, yeah, it's unethical, and it's not how research works. "A friend" of mine once had a boss who had a habit of including government technical monitors as conf paper authors, which apparently did butter some of them up, but there were occasions when "the friend" could tell that the technical monitor felt pretty skeevy that this boss would even offer. My friend recalls one getting pretty irritated about it (they have some pretty severe quid pro quo policies). I should note this boss was from a country where this kind of thing is par for the course and which regularly appears in the news for corruption scandals (if I said what it was you'd go "ahaa"). His lax sense of ethics on a more serious matter eventually got him massively and expensively sued, like on a "forget about retiring" level. I'm not sure if I'd call them out on it or not. I guess I'd have to know more about the paper and the circumstances of the work, particularly the funding and the background. It really sounds like a strange situation, that this guy just comes out of the blue and wants an authorship. Again, for a conference paper? Most conferences, to get a paper in, all you have to do is write something vaguely related to the field and pay the registration fee. It seems to me like there's more behind the scenes that we're not aware of. If it was a journal, I'd go nuclear on it, but conferences are pretty loosey-goosey about a lot of stuff. Like, it's not at all uncommon for professors to just randomly stick new grad students on conf papers just because they're in the research group. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You are in an abusive relationship. Supervisor and student is an interpersonal relationship, and just like with any interpersonal relationship, there are cases of abuse. Sadly, academia is full of such abusive situations. Don't walk, run! As with any abusive relationship, it's not going to get better no matter what you do. It will only get worse. You are in a state of denial: > > While I'm been working a career, my supervisor has very kindly been > shopping the paper around for publication > > > It sounds like you kind of try to find something good in your abuser in order to suppress your gut feeling, but your gut feeling is right. This is not common in the academic fields that I am aware of. If your supervisor strains your relationship with you in that manner, he or she doesn't care about you. Your supervisor knows it's unethical, your supervisor probably has a guess what opinion you have of him, so obviously he has no long-term interest in you. He won't help you and throw you under the bus whenever convenient. Don't count on him ever for your career. Honestly, the third author could just as much have been a desperate guy looking for a publication and paying your supervisor directly. Don't believe anything that guy says. You should not withdraw, because it's your work, and nobody will hold a grad student accountable. However, Don't walk, run and get away from that guy as quickly as you can. As with any abusive relationship, it's not going to get better no matter what you do. It will only get worse. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/24	1,539	6,470	<issue_start>username_0: I am from India, and I would like to pursue further education (maybe even a Ph.D.). I've messed up my BE degree (in Computer Science and Engineering) by getting consistently low marks from the second to fifth semester. My 6th semester marks are a little bit better (8.12), but that still does not improve my overall CGPA (at 6.69). This means that I have only two semesters to improve my marks, but it seems unlikely that my cumulative GPA will be higher than 7.25 or so. I've tried my best to ask my head of department about research opportunities, but it looks like there weren't any, to begin with. So, apart from reading some journal papers, I have no experience with research whatsoever. I would like to get into MSc in Machine Learning/Deep Learning or Cognitive Computing, but with my poor performance, I will probably be rejected. What should I be doing in order to increase my chances of getting into a prestigious research university?<issue_comment>username_1: I do not know the Indian system, here is the score in the UK. Essentially, if your first degree marks are not good enough many choose to do a Masters, which is usually fee paying and the entrance requirements are not (usually) so high as a PhD. In a way, a good Masters degree resets the record. Alongside this, another thing people do sometimes is to volunteer in a "lab". If you have programming skills, writing to a local group (University based) and volunteering to get work experience with them could help. Not everyone can afford this of course, but gaining experience in this way, and references and contacts might help. This of course pre-supposes you have the skills and enthusiasm that would be useful! Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no doubt that your low score makes it difficult. However, it does not make it impossible. 1. There are national competitive tests (GATE/NET ...) of various kinds for admissions to Master's (and higher) programmes in India. If you do well in them, you improve your chances quite a bit. 2. Note that eligibility for these programmes in centrally funded institutes is usually 6.0 (or 6.5 in some cases) so you are above that level. In your application, it is worth pointing out your improvement in grades. This shows that your trajectory has a positive derivative! 3. If you are reading journal papers, it would be good to write a review/summary of what you have learnt as a report. If this is nice enough and accessible to other students you could try to put it somewhere for publication. That could count in your favour. 4. If you have programming skills and contribute to some ongoing (usually open source) project, that could count in your favour. 5. If you have been part of some productive groups during summer internships that could improve your chances. Ultimately, doing research is different from doing well in examinations and courses. Those who are part of admissions processes are often aware of this and look at a number of factors. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you already know the answer, that if your grades aren't very good, your options for a PhD are also not very good. You could try to do a master's somewhere, hoping to improve your grades, or find a lower-tiered school that will accept you despite the grades. But I hope you might take a moment to reflect on what might be the cause of your poor grades before you decide what to do next. In my experience advising undergraduates at Michigan, where the students were all certainly bright enough, there were two basic reasons why a student might not be doing well. Usually it was because they had too much on their plates. Sometimes it was distractions like health problems or conflict at home that had them overloaded. But usually, they were just taking too many credits and they never had enough time to get all the work done. For them, the answer was simple: Take a lighter load. Much less common, but much more serious, were cases where the students didn't like what they were doing. They were majoring in computer science because their parents or maybe an inner voice were telling them how CS would lead to a great job. But they hated it and you could see it in their behavior, e.g., putting off projects until the day before they were due because they didn't enjoy them. No one can spend their life in a career they hate. Or at least, they shouldn't. I think <NAME> got it right in his [Stanford commencement address](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd_ptbiPoXM&t=54s): To do great work, you must do what you love and if you haven't found it, you must keep looking. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: There are many points to consider. You should think about what is your priority in the long-term since a PhD typically will take 5 years in India and 3 years in some other countries in the least, that too after a 2 years Master's degree. So if you don't really see yourself working on academic research for 3-5 years down the line, then a PhD is probably not the best way to go for you (PhD funding is a completely different ball-game and that can be a separate discussion on its own). As for the GPA, I think a consistent track record is a good reference for the committee who would like to hire/admit a prospective PhD student. That could also not matter in rare cases when the applicant is required to provide a different score, e.g. GATE rank in India or subject GRE+TOEFL score for English in the US. A Master's degree is usually required before being enrolled into a PhD so focussing on getting into a suitable Master's programme is beneficial in this case. Also, some Universities have the requirement of a Master's thesis which increases the chances of getting a PhD offer since that shows that you have been involved in doing original research. My personal opinion is that good grades typically shows if a student is committed to their education and hence it is important to have somewhat nicer grades than in the lower percentile. Also, an internship in research institutes/industries that might have a summer/winter program for short R&D projects might be a good starting point for you to check if you enjoy that experience. A PhD is an education and also training for a person to become an independent researcher that comes with several challenges which can be hard unless one finds it meaningful to do so. So before committing to something long-term check if it fits you. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/24	1,236	5,307	<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate who is determined to attend grad-school, and as such, I am hungry for opportunities to demonstrate my academic worth. In a recent course, my dialogue with the instructor naturally extended, and soon he gave me materials and open problems on which I made progress/results that impressed him. After some more work, he offered to co-write and publish a paper with me on the topic. Now, this particular instructor holds a very unpopular opinion (not ethically) that is his own novel work, which of course he is proud of, because if were to be true, it would have grand implications. Personally, while recognizing that I am not nearly as knowledgeable as he is, I strictly disagree with his opinion. Most second opinions I read online disagreed on similar grounds to mine. Unfortunately, he will almost certainly mention it in our paper, likely quite a few times. I have tried to \very lightly\ bring up my disagreement as a matter of "please teach me why I am wrong about this", and he did not seem to take to it well. Additionally, sometimes in his papers, he uses language I think is too grand flowery while making claims I think are too broad and slightly unestablished. On the other hand, he has been extremely kind and supportive of me, putting in the effort, and really doing his best as an advisor, which, I really do appreciate. As a bonus, he is relatively well published. Undoubtedly, a publication would be a good application item for me, perhaps helping me achieve more/better research opportunities as an undergraduate, and as such, further advancing my grad-school and academia aims. If it is relevant, the field is theoretical CS. What should I do? Can this have negative effects on my future career?<issue_comment>username_1: I originally posted this as a comment, but I think it's closer to an answer and seemed to satisfy the OP. I think the value you will get from publishing this paper, will far outweigh the "costs" of 1. Having an ongoing, difficult argument with your advisor about an opinion that doesn't have a black-and-white factual answer (you are very unlikely to convince him of anything). 2. The risk that someone will think less of you if they read this paper with the (over-)interpretation you disagree with (really, no one will care about this, and if they do they'll assume correctly your advisor wrote those parts). 3. The minor hit to your intellectual purity (every successful collaboration involves compromise). I've certainly been on papers where I did not agree with every sentence. The most important thing is that the scientific content is correct. Having a published paper as an undergraduate is a big deal. I wanted to add, though, that in general, disagreeing with your co-authors, even faculty co-authors, is highly encouraged if you have solid arguments to back up your side. My advice is coming from this particular situation, where you've already tried the "gentle nudge" approach and gotten a lot of pushback, and this opinion is not going to introduce any scientific errors into the paper (just, essentially, a difference in philosophy). I've been in this situation, and sometimes the path of least resistance is the best one. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think username_1's answer is already really helpful, and I simply want to share that when I disagree with my co-authors, I found it helpful to frame the problem as anticipating reviewers' critique. In other words, you can frame it in a way that you are on the same team as your advisor, and you are really just trying to do your due diligence to address reviewers' concerns. So now, instead of you disagreeing with him, it becomes a situation where you both are trying to defend the paper from some hypothetical reviewers. Perhaps in that case, he would be less defensive and more willing to share his thoughts. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You describe the adviser's opinion as "very unpopular", from which I infer that he has overstated the importance of his work previously, and that other people in his field know about his tendency to brag. If that's true, then I think you have nothing to worry about. When they see your name along with his on the paper, and then they see his familiar bragging, and then they see that you're an undergraduate, they'll understand who wrote the hype and they'll understand that you don't have the clout to prevent it. I expect that nobody will blame you. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Absolutely do proceed with publishing. Moreover, if you plan on extending your little collaboration, think of the following - you both have some ideas and something you deem important or true. Arguing these points furthers research, but you both ought to approach that with some constructive ideas. Argument of "I think this is true" - "Nah, seems unlikely to me" is not much of an argument, and it's common to tread the same grounds over and over again for decades until finally some decisive experiment is designed and conducted. Now, I'm not saying you should invest a lot of resources into it - rather that avoiding old arguments and seeking actually novel perspectives on the story in front of you would probably help you with the research overall. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/25	1,302	5,824	<issue_start>username_0: I am currently working on a research project with my PhD supervisor. The focus of this project is a sub-field that my supervisor has not previously published in and one that I am not familiar with. This sub-field has also been studied in the literature for more than 30 years. From past research experience, I am used to performing a literature review before a research project is started to answer the following questions: 1. What has already been done? 2. What is the current state-of-the-art (SOTA) algorithm? 3. What improvements can be done to the SOTA? Answering questions 1 and 2 simply involves gathering information from different papers. Answering question 3, however, is a bit more complicated, since this would involve understanding how the SOTA algorithm precisely works, and then identifying an area of improvement. Moreover, the SOTA algorithm in this case is the result of incremental improvements of a basic algorithm that was proposed 20-30 years ago. Since I am not familiar with the field, then understanding how the SOTA algorithm works would involve understanding how the basic algorithm works and then understanding the incremental improvements that were implemented. The problem is that understanding and re-implementing the basic algorithm would take approximately 2-3 months. This is because it requires technical background that I do not yet have. My PhD supervisor is aware of this, and because of this, has proposed that we do not bother with re-implementing the basic algorithm or the SOTA algorithm and instead try to approach the problem from a completely different perspective, that has not been previously proposed in the literature, using the technical knowledge that we are familiar with. While I do appreciate my supervisor's ambition, I have a few concerns: 1. This field has been studied for over 30 years. Complete books have been written about it. The fact that nobody bothered to go down the path that we are exploring strongly suggests that it is not a fruitful one. 2. Because we would essentially be ignoring the literature, we would be re-inventing the wheel a lot of the time. This means we would be making a lot of mistakes, learning from them, and then most likely end up implementing what was already done in the literature. This would waste a lot of time. 3. Even if we do end up designing an algorithm, there is no guarantee that it will improve on the SOTA. If it doesn't, then what? Are my concerns justified? For my third concern, I am not sure if improving on the SOTA is always the goal of publication, and it is possible that some conferences will appreciate a new approach to an existing problem, even if it doesn't improve on the SOTA. However, I am not sure about this.<issue_comment>username_1: Let's start with your concerns: Number 1: "The fact that nobody bothered to go down the path that we are exploring strongly suggests that it is not a fruitful one." - No. There may be many reasons why this has not been tried, e.g. fashion, lack of relevant expertise, or simply the tools for this route were not available at the time the topic began to develop and people pursued the - then - easier route. Number 2: Ignoring the literature is not really an option on the long run, but it can be good idea to try making your own mistakes first before being too much "confused" by previous approaches. Once you tried and failed a few times, you will be able to appreciate much more the literature and understand much more easily why they did things the way they did - or, if you succeed, you now can try to understand where they failed or how they did things differently. It can be in general much easier to read the literature if you had the possibility to try a direction on your own. Ultimately, you will have to embed your insights into existing knowledge, but if your method is superior, it will supersede the work, and if it is not, you still may have understood something beyond the other approaches. Number 3: Scientifically, it is perfectly ok to try a different algorithm principle, even if it does not supersede high-strung algorithms developed over decades of refining and improvement. The challenge will be getting it published, because some venues believe only in benchmark-breaking methods rather than novel insights and understanding. However, if you believe in the direction, go for it. You might want to try and get a sample implementation of the standard method, though, to be able to run comparisons with the existing models. I strongly recommend getting one, even if only as executable if nothing else. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think your title is a bit misleading: "not wanting to invest 2-3 months into reimplementing an algorithm" and "not caring about the current literature" is not the same. To the point. First, I don't see why an algorithm X must be necessarily constructed as an extension of an algorithm Y. You have to care about improving the results provided by SOTA, but it doesn't mean building on top of a SOTA algorithm. Second, you have a concern that your method won't be better than SOTA. It is of course valid, but you may as well fail to improve an existing solution. Third, I find it odd that in a well-research field you need to "reimplement" anything. Can't you get some ready-made implementation and work with it? In general, I am afraid there is no "guaranteed" road in your case. There is some risk in both options. In such situations I usually try to find at least some "sellable" features of my solution, which can be considered along with SOTA results. For example, you can consider whether your approach is going to be faster / use less memory / less CPU / be better in certain specific cases, etc. This should give some backup options. Upvotes: 4
2021/08/25	586	2,462	<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently in the 4th year of my PhD in math. My main research focus is complex analysis (geometric function theory) but I'm also learning and working on PDE modelling. After my PhD, I want to apply for an industry job that is (at least somewhat) research oriented. Ideally, I would like to apply/develop Partial Differential Equation (PDE) modelling as part of the job. I'm at a fork in my path where I believe it is more beneficial to go the PDE route for industry. (Although complex analysis has a long history of applications in almost every science.) My two questions are: 1. How do I find out what are some of the current, most cutting-edge PDE techniques used in the industry? Of course, I talk to my academic mentors but I feel like there's a semipermeable wall between academia and industry where knowledge and information flows only from academia to the industry and not the other way. 2. What are some skills that potential employers look for from a math PhD with a PDE background? I realize this question is too narrow in that it focuses only on jobs that apply PDEs but I welcome comments and answers from related fields; say, calculus of variations or numerical analysis. Thanks for your time.<issue_comment>username_1: There is much information flowing back from industry to academia as well, though maybe not enough to mathematics specifically. Regardless, the #1 skill we know industry employers need from math graduates (PhD or undergraduate) are computer skills in general, programming skills in particular, and in the context of PDEs skills with the numerical solution of differential equations. If you are interested in a cross section of applications of computing in industry, for example, you might be interested in taking a look at [this book](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1466596805). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Almost by definition, no cutting-edge things are done in industry, because all too frequently the company doing the cutting-edge things is what ends up being cut. Providing a proof of anything is almost always way overkill for industry; it takes too much time and effort for little improvement, and in the unlikely event that something they relied on turns out to be false, bankruptcy is not that bad an option. (Everyone still gets to keep what they were already paid as salary.) Unfortunately, the few exceptions tend to involve blowing up people. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/26	977	3,894	<issue_start>username_0: Tenured professors can be fired for a variety of reasons, the most common being incompetence, negligence, immoral/personal conduct, and financial exigency. Several questions: 1. Do these four reasons also apply to firing endowed professors? I'm guessing financial exigency does not apply because the endowment covers the costs. The other three I am not sure about, since presumably the endowed professor doesn't have formal responsibilities (again since the endowment removes the need to teach/supervise/etc). 2. Between the donor, the department, and the university, which of the three sets the rules? For example, can the donor say "we require our endowed professor to do good research, and are opposed to termination for any reason as long as he/she is doing good research"? (I note <NAME> felt something similar about the [Victoria Cross](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Cross#Forfeited_awards)) 3. If the endowed professor can be and is fired, does the search for the next professor start immediately, following the standard process? I'm guessing yes since I don't see any reason why not.<issue_comment>username_1: From what I’ve seen in my old field… As to your point 1, there isn’t a change in responsibilities. Endowed chairs teach, supervise, and research; it’s a honorific. So your premise is a bit shaky. As to 2, once the chair is established, appointment, etc, is handled by the department. I’m not familiar with special cases; it is conceivable that the donating entity/person suggests a first recipient. As to 3, there isn’t a search in the sense the term is usually employed. Endowed chairs (tend to) go to tenured faculty at the department. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no legal difference between a tenured professor and a tenured professor holding an endowed position. The latter is mostly a honorific, and in practice just means that they receive the proceeds of an endowment as part of their salary or for research purposes. As a consequence, there are really no legal aspects that would make a difference. Some of the other premises in the question are also questionable. First, endowments do not have to be large. They can be $100,000 and yield $5,000 per year for research purposes. If the university is in financial trouble, then this endowment isn't going to save the professor: The university is still paying all or nearly all of that person's salary. Second, not every endowed professorship is directly related to a person or entity that has an interest in who actually holds the chair. It may be that the money was given 50 years ago by someone who is long dead, or that someone gave the money to honor the legacy of someone who is long dead, but who doesn't actually have any connection to the field in which the chair is. Or it may be an entity that for whatever reason really doesn't want to be involved in telling the university what to do with the money (think about the [regius professorships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regius_Professor)). Finally, would the chair search start immediately? Who knows. If the university is in financial trouble, it may not be able to afford hiring someone right away. In that case, the position would simply be unfilled for a while. If there is a search, in all cases I am familiar with, the stipulations of the endowment make it clear that the entity in charge of finding and hiring candidates is the university or the department, not the entity that endowed the position. You cannot buy a position for a friend of yours by creating an endowment -- no university would accept such a situation. It will often happen that the university or department informs the donor if they have come to a conclusion about who they would like to hire, but it will not accept being told who to hire, nor offer the donor the right to veto. Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
2021/08/26	714	2,992	<issue_start>username_0: I am applying for MS programs in the US, and I'm wondering if I should include my photograph in the CV. According to [this post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30043/in-what-situations-would-it-be-appropriate-to-include-ones-photograph-in-a-cv) one should never include photos because of anti-discrimination laws. But my CV would also include links to my linkedin, github and my website, all of which have my photo. Should I not include these links as well?<issue_comment>username_1: Don't include the photo. Yes, it's possible to figure out on the internet what you look like. But one would still have to figure it out. By including a photo, you make it impossible not to know how you look. If in doubt, always follow the customs of the place where you apply. As per the question, this answer applies mainly to the US. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Basically, the world today is so complex that anything that can be interpreted positively can also be evaluated negatively. After all, each coin has a flipside. My personal experience is that one's own openness also generates such on the other side and one does not always have to assume negative intentions (discrimination, etc.). I always attach my photo everywhere and had no negative experiences. Ultimately, what counts is what you do, how you think and what you want (and not how you look like). But of course, that can always look completely different from industry to industry. Of course, if it is clear from the outset that it will be interpreted negatively to include one's photo (one is assumed to be trying to gain an advantage), then I would refrain from including the photo. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In the US, none of those things should be considered in an application. It is your academic record, perhaps a statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation that will be determinative. I suggest leaving out everything that is irrelevant. Even a link to your linkedIn profile is noise. The other things (personal website...) are fine if they contain relevant things, such as papers and projects you have worked on. But if someone needs to go to the web for needed information, you are doing yourself no favors. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If you get an invitation for an interview soon, it's likely to be virtual due to COVID, so they will likely find out what you look like soon enough. It also seems to me that there are some European countries that do this, so their applicants also do. I say "seems" due having virtually no US-based applicants who have ever included a head-shot. Thus, I agree with those who say to leave it out of your application. Lots of people in the US will find in strange and maybe off-putting. It gives a further chance for implicit bias, and perhaps even explicit bias that will never be detected. They will get their chance to see you when you give your job talk/virtual interview. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/26	886	3,942	<issue_start>username_0: I plan to write a structured literature review in a relatively new field in which only a few peer reviewed articles already exist. How would you approach this? Find articles in adjacent topics and clearly underline the existing gap in research OR rather lower the quality of the papers I include (i.e. journal ranks). I am very new to this type of work, love the topic, see the practical (and academic need), but feel that the structure literature review is quite a hard "approach" for new fields. Thank you - curious to hear your thoughts and ideas.<issue_comment>username_1: Here is an approach I have found works, but I'm sure different things will work well for different people (I assumed in writing this that you are not an expert in the field, but rereading the question it's not clear to me if this was a good assumption, sorry if that is the case): 0. Make sure you have a lot of your favorite form of caffeine on hand. 1. Identify two or three highly cited review articles in the field. Skim them to get an overview; mark the sections to come back to later that are relevant for your survey. 2. Start a database of reference by looking at what was cited in the review papers, for example using endnote. Go to those papers. Add the the references they cited. Repeat until it seems like you are getting the same set of references. 3. Read the abstracts of the papers in your database. Make some kind of not about whether they seem interesting or not (don't get rid of the uninteresting ones because you might find later that it really was interesting once you get to understand the field better, but also make the uninteresting ones less visible so you don't waste time wading through them). For ones that look interesting, look at the figures (assuming this is a field where papers have figures). If it still looks interesting, try to summarize the main result in one or two sentences and add it to a table. 4. Look at the conference proceedings from a few recent conferences in that field to see what topics people are working on. 5. As you read papers, you'll start noticing some names and groups pop up a lot. Try to contact these people and explain what you are doing and ask if they'd be willing to chat with you for a half hour about the field. Many won't respond, but if you can spend half an hour on the phone with an expert (or more than one expert), you will learn a lot in a short amount of time about what they find interesting, what the trends are, and thoughts / topics that are not written down anywhere. Also, ask them if they have any contacts they'd be willing to give you who you can follow up with for more information. 6. One note-taking strategy I personally like is to try to draw a web on a piece of paper the major themes in my search, with links to major papers/ideas, and show how these different papers and ideas relate to each other. This map gets redrawn many times as I learn more and change my mind about how the information is logically organized. As to whether to "highlight gaps" or "lower your quality standards" -- I would say you should include everything relevant to understanding the field. I would not spend time on papers that were tangentially relevant or of questionable quality (but ideally your judgment of quality should be based on the content of the paper, not the journal it was published in). If there are major gaps in the field, that should be reflected in your review. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my field, following the [PRISMA guidelines](http://www.prisma-statement.org/) is a virtual requirement for systematic reviews. Given the dearth of articles in the field, you may be interested in a "scoping review" where, basically, you attempt to collect all related articles and identify gaps. Needless to say, you should look at the already-published review articles in the target journal and mimic/iterate on their format. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/27	867	3,720	<issue_start>username_0: Recently I reviewed a submission to a journal. The editor even sent me an email saying the review was received. In my review I suggested correction of several minor mistakes but there were also a couple major ones that in my view needed to be addressed before acceptance for publication. Whenever this happens (at least taking in account the papers I have submitted to other journals) the authors make the first revision, then the revision is sent to the reviewers again, so they can look at the second version of the paper and see if they agree with the revisions, right? Well... I learned today that the paper was published without returning the second time. I found it weird, is that normal?<issue_comment>username_1: This depends very much on the field, the journal, the editor, the amount of revisions requested, etc. I've reviewed papers that I've seen three or four times, and papers that I saw only once and then they were published. If this editor asks you to review for the same journal again, you are free to explicitly request to see the paper again after revisions (although the editor is also free to ignore you and publish anyway). Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It's the editor's call. If the authors address reviewer comments well and the editor can see that they did, what's the point about sending the paper to the reviewers again, waiting 3...4...5... months before they finally get around to reading the new version and then agreeing that the authors did all the requested revisions? It just drags out the process, eats up everyone's time. If the editor can see that the authors did everything they were asked to, let's just move on and get the paper accepted right there and then! Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: What is common depends very much on the field. In physical/theoretical chemistry, the standard approach is that reviewers can recommend revising the manuscript in two different ways: * "minor revision": I don't need to see the revised paper again, it's okay if the editor considers the comments sufficiently addressed/incorporated. * "major revision": The revised paper will require a second round of reviews. What actually happens with the manuscript depends on the editor and editorial policy. Perhaps if just one reviewer recommends a "major revision" while the other(s) ask for just "minor revision", the editor might conclude that a second round of reviews isn't all that necessary. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: This is a common misconception (driven by the too strong fetish of review). You are NOT a gatekeeper. NO. Just...NO! You are an assistant to the editor. You don't get a vote. You don't get a final chop. You don't get "dings". If the issues were minor, that ALL the more reason, why there's no point in recirculating the paper to you. However, even if your issues were serious, you STILL don't get a final ding if the editor feels differently. I once submitted a paper which criticized a Bell Labs big wheel. I found out long after that he had been a reviewer (and, go figure, panned my paper), but the editor used his own judgment circulated it elsewhere and it was published with no revisions. Literally (and not how the millenials use that word). The point (other than "go me") is that the editor is the gatekeeper. NOT the reviewer. Authors need to learn this as well. If you don't like the revisions, move your paper. Now, 90% of you are complaining about valid critiques and need to suck it up and fix your stuff. But there's like 10% where you should just tell the system to piss off and go to another journal (there are a metric butt-ton\* of them out there). \*SI unit Upvotes: -1
2021/08/27	1,154	4,768	<issue_start>username_0: I was wondering how PhD admissions actually work. Do we have to mention the professor we want to work with in our application? Do we reach out to them before we actually apply? And what if my research experience is in one area (theoritical computer science and coding theory) but I'd like to do my PhD in some other area (Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning), where I haven't had any experience? Any advice would be appreciated. Update: For context, I am an undergraduate student studying Applied Mathematics at a liberal arts college in the US. I want to apply for PhD programs in Computer Science in the US.<issue_comment>username_1: You normally need to contact the person you wish to work with before you start applying for your PhD since you need to make sure they are able to take you on as a student. You also normally need to mention it when you submit your application so the university knows everything is ready for you to start. For your last question, it depends on the area - for example, if you studied math prior to your PhD you may be able to apply for a PhD in data science, finance, etc. but it depends a lot on what the project requires and whether the specific department is willing to admit you. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Most PhD programs in the US (including CS, at least those I have any familiarity with) primarily admit students to a program; faculty advisors are chosen later. These programs also tend to have extensive websites that explain the admissions process in detail, though you might have to dig a bit. For example the CS program at [UW-Madison](https://www.cs.wisc.edu/graduate/ms-and-phd-program/) says about admissions [decisions](https://www.cs.wisc.edu/graduate/graduate-admissions-faq/): > > After careful review, the Graduate Admissions Committee recommends admission for the applicants they feel are most qualified for our program. The selection is made without regard to the degree goal (MS or PhD), area of interest or financial need. The department’s admissions recommendations are reviewed and approved by the Graduate School. > > > Nothing is mentioned about having selected an advisor or having their support ahead of time. If you dig further, they have a [guidebook](https://www.cs.wisc.edu/graduate-guidebook-2020-2021/) that [mentions](https://www.cs.wisc.edu/graduate-guidebook-2020-2021/#dissertation-advisor): > > It is the responsibility of a PhD student to eventually find a dissertation advisor; the Department does not guarantee that a dissertation advisor will be provided. The dissertation advisor must be a full-time or affiliate faculty member of the Department, or have retired or resigned from such a position no more than a year ago. > > > "Eventually" - not before admission. Typically the first year is spent taking classes and beginning relationships with faculty members that could be potential advisors. I was not in CS, but my own grad program (neuroscience) had a more formal "rotation" structure, where new students spent the first couple of semesters in rotations with 2-4 faculty members, spending a bit of time in their labs to get to know them. This is just one example - you will need to research individual programs to see how they do things exactly. I spent about 5 minutes finding this information for one program, though there's a lot more to read. You'll want to apply to several programs, and should plan to spend a good number of hours doing research like this into programs before you apply. If you want to work with a specific person, I'd highly recommend reaching out to them in advance. What if you get admitted and then find out they are moving to another university? Or retiring? Or not taking students because they have too many, don't have funding, plan to go on sabbatical, etc. However, their blessing will not be required for application (unless the program says otherwise; do your homework) and may not even be particularly beneficial, depending on how admissions decisions are made. Even if you don't have a specific person you want to work with, it can still be worthwhile to reach out, but not all faculty will be that responsive: you might just get referred to the application process if they'd prefer to not deal with prospective students until they are actually interviewed or admitted. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: There are a few questions in this post, but I will answer the title question, "For PhD admissions, do you mention who you want to work with in your application?? There is no general answer. It is different in different fields and subfields, and across countries. You should ask an advisor in your field to make sure you are doing what is expected. Upvotes: 0
2021/08/27	1,155	4,402	<issue_start>username_0: A few years ago, while I was working as a freelancer, I did something very stupid. On a freelancing website someone posted a few exercises about ordinary differential equations and asked someone to solve them (I don't remember the details exactly, but I think it's safe to assume it was their homework). I did the project. That's the only time that I cheated and I regret it. Now I'm an undergraduate student and am thinking about going to graduate school and maybe even getting a job in academia after finishing graduate school (I dropped out of the school and just started the school this year, and that's why I'm still an undergrad). What are the possible consequences of what I did and what should I do now? Should I tell it in my resume (for graduate school and possibly when I want to get a job in future) or just pretend it didn't happen or something else?<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming this was several years ago and not a continuing pattern, the fact that you raise the question suggests you have learned something in the interim. You should do precisely nothing about the old transgression. Someone else got a benefit they didn't deserve, but it was a small thing in their overall record. Likewise, while your actions can't be commended, I assume it was a small thing overall in your learning process. Let it go. Let the past remain in the past. Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: This makes no sense at all. You didn't cheat. Eventually the supposed student may have cheated. You didn't have any obligations towards his school. The school doesn't have the power to forbid you from solving ODEs. There is no legal, moral or ethical dilemma here. But you may have or acquire enemies/adversaries and they may try to frame you. So you should never give ammunition to your potential enemies so never talk about this anymore. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: As Jesus said, “Go forth, and sin no more.” Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: You're over-thinking this. Do nothing about it. It is entirely legitimate to answer peoples' questions on-line. If we had to screen all of on-line questions in regard to possible exams or quizzes, nothing would get done. For future, though, of course, if the on-line questions demonstrate weak prior effort, and you suspect it's someone trying to get other people to do their work, sure, don'd buy in. But it is not your job as a technical person to "police" peoples' requests to you for explanation of technical things. Sure, be a little aware of obviously cheat-y things, but that should not be your major occupation. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Times are different. This is the age of the internet, and "The internet’s not written in pencil... it’s written in ink."1 I think you should go find the post and screen-capture or [archive it](https://archive.org) and record to the best of your knowledge your thinking at the time and reason(s) for participating in the forum. It sounds like you participated for profit, and if it seems you've done this more than once now that you check, document it all, along with your notes now. They're not contemporaneous, but at least they can have a time stamp. Once that's over, then you can forget about it knowing that in the event that you end up in a career path where people go look you up exhaustively, you can answer any questions credibly. You might end up in a mathematics career in an institution where they do background checks or competing for a competitive position, or even running for political office some day. If you have the notes, then even though you've taken the luxury of forgetting about it you still can produce the complete story. Background checks do not look for trivial imperfections so much as they look for potentially leverage-able information and things you may hope nobody ever finds out. Being open and forthcoming is the best way here. * Washington Post [Echoes of Biden’s 1987 plagiarism scandal continue to reverberate](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/echoes-of-bidens-1987-plagiarism-scandal-continue-to-reverberate/2019/06/05/dbaf3716-7292-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html) * Wikipedia [Joe Biden 1988 presidential campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_1988_presidential_campaign) --- 1 <NAME> quote from [The Social Network](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/) Upvotes: 2
2021/08/27	3,088	12,774	<issue_start>username_0: I'm a course instructor and was finalizing my syllabus when I hit a bit of a wall and would love to hear the community's input. If you're teaching a class that meets twice per week, do you prefer to hold the exam on the earlier meeting time, or the later one? (E.g. if you have a Tuesday/Thursday class, and everything else is held equal, would you lean towards holding it on the Tuesday meeting or the Thursday one?) I can see slight advantages for either, but am very unsure what others' thoughts are. If you're a student (or recently graduated), did/do you have a preference? Does it depend at all on the nature of the exam (short answer vs. essay vs. multiple choice, etc.)? (Assume, for the sake of this question, that the material, difficulty, class time devoted to preparation, etc. are otherwise identical. If it matters, this is for a social science elective class, where the overwhelming majority of students are juniors/seniors.) Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: For my experience, the biggest factor that students will care about is what days do they have exams in their other classes. If the students have two exams the same day, they won't be able to properly study for either of them. Whether you can arrange this or not depends on how similar their schedules are. E.g. You said you are teaching an upper level social science elective. It may happen then that 80 - 90% of your students are also taking the exact same required social science class. If that class has an exam on a Tuesday, then you should not have your the same day. Now, it may also happen that your students have completely different schedules. Some have exams on a Tuesday, others have on a Thursday. In that case it doesn't matter that much. Just pick one. Flip a coin if necessary. To figure this out, you may just want to ask the students what day is best for them and see if there is a consensus or not. Edit: @Buffy's point about incentivizing cramming is interesting. I decided to search if there was any research on the effect of time between exams. I found this paper: Devin <NAME>, <NAME>. "The impact of time between cognitive tasks on performance: Evidence from advanced placement exams" Economics of Education Review, Volume 48, 2015, Pages 30-40, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.04.002> It is AP exams, not college midterm exams, but the conclusions should transfer I think. Here is the abstract: > > Students are often required to perform several mental tasks in a short period of time, and their performance is likely to depend on how closely the tasks are scheduled. We examine this phenomenon in a particular context: Advanced Placement (AP) exams in the United States. We exploit variation in the AP exam schedule from year to year which results in a student who takes two exams in one year having more or less time between the exams than a student who takes the same two exams in a different year. We find evidence that more time between exams results in higher scores, particularly on the second exam, and that this effect varies across different types of students. Our estimates suggest that a student taking two exams ten days apart is 6–8% more likely to pass them both than a student taking the same exams only one day apart. > > > Here is a relevant quote from the conclusions section: > > One could imagine various mechanisms for why more time between exams leads to better outcomes. For example, one possible explanation for our results is simple fatigue. Taking an AP exam is mentally and physically exhausting and it may be difficult to perform at peak ability when taking two exams in close succession. Another possible explanation is that last-minute preparation for exams (“cramming”) is important and more difficult when exams are close together. A third and related mechanism is that when exams are close together, students foresee their possible fatigue or lack of cramming time, and preemptively allocate their energies to just one exam. Our data do not allow us to identify a specific mechanism behind our findings, but may provide some clues. For example, we find that the detrimental effect of temporally proximal exams is primarily associated with the second exam taken. Our fatigue mechanism predicts this effect. The cramming mechanism may also predict this effect, but not so directly. For example, if two exams are close together and a student has to do last-minute cramming for both exams at the same time, this could arguably affect both the first and the second test score. Thus, this evidence is suggestive of fatigue, but cannot rule out a cramming effect > > > (emphasize mine). So I would still stand by my suggestion of not having two exams on one day, to avoid mental fatigue of the students, even though it could potentially incentivize cramming to a certain degree. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm an undergrad, and I do have a preference, so I will answer based on the information you have given in the question. But note that there are many other external factors, such as your students' class load on both days and any campus events, that will make a difference. All else being equal, I would prefer an exam on Thursday. Students often like to clarify any questions about the course material or the pattern of the exam before it's coming up. This would be more convenient to do on Tuesday when there are only 2 days left for the exam, and hence, I would have covered more material and can ask more questions. If the exam is on Tuesday, the last class would be on Thursday the week before, which is 5 days before the exam where I would have covered less material, and therefore, I may not be able to clarify all my questions. I could email, but asking face-to-face in a class would be better. Yes, in an ideal world, I would have kept up with the material since the beginning and should be able to ask questions any time. But students procrastinate. In conclusion, I would prefer it on Thursday, but since I do not know the true situation of your students, I suggest you take it with a grain of salt. The best way to figure this out would be simply to ask your students. Set up a poll and gauge their opinions. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I prefer to hold my exams on Tuesday (in your example), as that lets me provide more rapid and thorough feedback. I believe it is of extreme usefulness to provide feedback while the students still remember their thought processes during the exam. I work hard to get the exams graded quickly, usually by the evening of the exam or the next morning. I can post results within 24 hours. At the next class meeting (Thursday), I can discuss the exam, provide statistics, point out common difficulties, etc. I'd rather do this bit 2 days after the exam than 5 days after. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I've done a lot of this with large groups of trainees in the military (service schools). Ideal, is to do it Friday morning, then work hard and grade it and post results (students WILL stop by!) FRI afternoon. Given your TUE/THU choice, I would opt for the THU. Let them unwind over the weekend. Cry or celebrate or whatever. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: The decision I've made in the math & computing courses I've taught, for about the last two decades, is to give exams at the start of the week. Advantages: * This maximizes the amount of time students have to digest material after being introduced at the end of the prior week. (Note that every session has new material; there are no "review days".) * Weekly assignments practicing the material can be given in the prior week, received on the weekend (e.g., Sunday night), graded by me that night, and therefore have relevant feedback available to students Monday morning before the upcoming exam. * Likewise, online discussion groups can be occurring over the weekend (required in some of my higher-level courses), reflecting the entirety of the prior module, and completed before the exam. * Students have maximal time to email me with any questions in the days from end of one week to start of the next (although that's not very frequent for me). In my courses I tend to have one "floater" day (maybe a lab or optional topic) near the end of the first quarter of the semester, that can be pushed either before or after the first exam, so as to make exams occur on the desired weekday (regardless of when the semester starts). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: This largely depends on whether you have something useful to do with the left-over lesson if you set the exam on the first session of the week. Two factors that will affect this are: (1) whether you want to separate topics by strict increments of whole numbers of weeks; and (2) whether or not you want to have a final "wrap up" lesson that occurs after your last in-class exam. If you have the exams on the last session of the week then it is simple to separate your topics by increments that are whole numbers of weeks, ending with an exam. This also means that you can end the session with an exam, and there is no further "left-over" class that comes after the assessable parts. On the other hand, if you have the exams on an earlier session of the week then you will need to decide what to do with the "left-over" session at the end of the week. There are some fruitful things this can be used for, such as a feedback session for the exam (if it can be marked really quickly), or a casual "wrap-up" session for the topic, or just moving on to the next topic (except in the last session of the semester). If you decide to give a "wrap up" session, you need to carefully consider whether this is something the students would want before the exam, or whether it is useful to have a stress-free session that comes after the assessment has passed. The latter gives you some opportunities to have a more general bull-session about the topics, the course, how it applies in the profession, etc., and students can sometimes enjoy these sessions. On the other hand, students may resent being given information about a topic after the opportunity for the assessment has passed. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: Wednesdays and Thursdays seem to work the best for me as an undergrad As an undergraduate, I preferred exams on Wednesdays and Thursdays for 2 reasons. First, if I took a long weekend (either take off Friday or Monday), I wouldn't miss it. Secondly, sometimes I'd pick up part time work on weekdays, so I'd study mainly on the weekends - this way I always had 1 class day before the exam to ask questions. As a TA I also liked Wednesdays and Thursdays - why? Because it meant I didn't do (as much) grading on the weekend. I've also found students are much less interested in their exam grade on a Friday than a Monday. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Seems like one of the opinion-based questions, though probably just "not friday" (or other culture-based "not giving a damn" day) would be the rule unless you want to be disliked and then discuss with the students. Some will be fine with Mondays, some with early mornings and you won't be able to satisfy everyone with the same utility, thus discussion and perhaps even voting or checking with the peers (teachers/lecturers) would do better so the students don't have: * overlaps or blocks of just exams in a single day * all the week of just exams Though personally I as a student have managed to do both just fine and depending on the exams even the annoyance was managable. Probably the worst approach to this from the teacher's standpoint is to be stubborn and not adjust because that will affect both results (which retrospectively people might not care about) and reputation of you personally or the school you represent. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: My most successful exam was held a Saturday morning. I had obtained special permission from the chair or the Dean for that. All the students were in the right headspace when they came in: no one had rushed from another class before the start of the exam, no one had to rush to another class at the end of the exam. The result was such a success that there were rumours the exam had been leaked to students before hand. I did that only one year: the logistics of getting this done (getting security to open an room, getting all the special permissions) turned the experiment into something that required non-zero extra work on my part, especially when the alternative is staying home on a Saturday morning. None of the students complained (they were told well in advance) at the time, but I’m no longer sure no student would complain if I try this scheme again these days. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/27	1,140	4,574	<issue_start>username_0: I worked with a professor over the summer where I explored a slightly original avenue in a fairly niche domain. Basically, I ran simulations that validate previous lab experiment results. The work also explored a slightly new scenario in the domain, and I also conducted a parameter study. As far as I know (which is very little, although I have tried my best to go through the relevant literature), nobody has published the simulation results before, but only experimental and theoretical. My professor did say at the beginning of the REU that he has no idea what to expect for the results since they have not been done before. I am also not aware of any parameter studies regarding this (which is again, not saying much). I don't think my results are publishable as is, but I think I could refine them, and they could probably be interesting. My professor was happy with the work. How do I broach the idea of a possible publication for my work with him, if at all? I am at a disadvantage for grad school since I will be switching fields, and my country does not have many resources for research, so I could not conduct a whole lot of it in my early undergrad years. So, I need to try and get a publication to make a case for myself in grad admissions. But I worry that: * such a suggestion could look naive * or worse, he might think I am in it just for a publication and I don't think much of our research otherwise (which is not true of course) * he may not want to collaborate with me after the summer (which is soon) Note: In case it matters, this was an online REU and the professor is German. The field is Physics.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no special format or no special etiquette for this. Just ask. Straight up. But don't forget the follow up questions if they say no. Why? What do I/we still need to do to make it worth publishing? These are completely natural questions for a newcomer to research. If this is a cross-border collaboration then you might also ask who else might be interested in pushing the work along. Like a lot of things in education, if you don't ask, you don't learn. Just. Do. It. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You should not be afraid of asking. For example: > > Dear Prof. X > > > I am wondering if the results of our work this summer would be worth publishing. I think they could be interesting to the community because [...]. Do you think it would make sense to write a paper about them? > > > But you can do it in any other way: the format is not so important. To debunk your worries: > > such a suggestion could look naive > > > You are an undergraduate, and this is probably one of your first experiences in research. You are allowed to be naive. > > or worse, he might think I am in it just for a publication and I don't think much of our research otherwise (which is not true of course) > > > Quite the opposite. If you did not think much of the research, you would not want to publish it. If the professor thinks that you are too eager to publish before getting meaningful results, he will tell you so, and then you will have learned something. > > he may not want to collaborate with me after the summer (which is soon) > > > That will not depend on whether you ask this or not. Showing initiative will probably not harm. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: > > such a suggestion could look naive, or worse, he might think I am in it just for a publication... > > > There are several good things to be said about looking naive when asking this kind of question that may involve a substantial commitment by your professor to see it through: * you may receive a more complete answer, where your professor takes some time to lay out their reasoning for you. * That then provides you an opportunity for a follow-up, including a "But..." if the first answer was negative. * if you approach this indirectly, leading with "I'm surprised, I can not find any published work of this sort anywhere. I wonder if there's some reason..." or similar, your professor may "suddenly have the idea" that it could and should become a publication. The last point is particularly helpful. I'm not an expert in this, but I believe that professors can sometimes be more motivated by and enthusiastic about ideas they believe that they've had themselves, than by ideas that students suggest to them. I have also heard that this "planting an idea in someone else's head" strategy works well, way beyond being an undergraduate. ;-) Upvotes: 1
2021/08/27	525	2,156	<issue_start>username_0: I graduated with my B.S. during the pandemic and decided to go directly into a non-thesis Masters in Earth Science. I want to pursue a PhD, however I am unsure about my eligibility without having completed a thesis beforehand. I do have some research experience which have resulted in 4 conference posters, although I have not published a manuscript to date. As I prepare for my next steps, I would appreciate any insight. My other consideration is to seek a one year MRes though a school in the UK.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is absolutely possible. You have to write and publish some research papers in peer-reviewed journals. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: People have gone from just a BS to having a PhD as well as from programs like OMSCS (example of an online non-thesis MS) to being able to get a PhD so I would imagine it is possible for you as well. I would definitely highlight the research experience that you do have so far, as a PhD is all about your research. Also, I would make sure that you know what your (specific) interests are in, as that will be of great help for identifying programs and advisors of interest, and vice-versa. I'd start by talking with any research advisors you have had or advisors in your current program to see if a PhD is the logical next step for you, and if you can still get involved in research at your current program to help further hone your interests. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience, having a non-thesis MSc in the UK doesn't really make much difference in terms of PhD applications. If you have a supervisor/tutor who you worked closely with (or at least knows you well enough), and can write you a strong letter of recommendation, you should be fine. Often MSc students' thesis isn't even relevant for the PhD they're applying for anyway. It's also uncommon here to have publications in the sciences before beginning a PhD. My advice would be to just apply for the PhD's, write about your research experience in your cover letters/CV. If your grades are up to the standard, I don't think you'll have much of a disadvantage . Upvotes: 2
2021/08/27	3,176	13,345	<issue_start>username_0: I finished my Ph.D. in mathematics in 2016 and then worked at the same university (in Germany) and under the same professor (now retired) as a postdoc for the next four years. I knew my contract would only last until the end of 2020, so I started applying for positions in academia around June last year without any success. Late 2020, I eventually started applying for jobs outside of academia which worked better insofar that I am currently employed, working full-time providing for me and my partner. In the meantime, I made several attempts to return to academia, prioritizing jobs with an emphasis on teaching in comparison to research, as I believe that I am more capable in teaching and I enjoy it a lot, in particular when it is teaching math students (especially undergraduates). Unfortunately, none of my applications landed me any interviews. I struggle to believe that I am not qualified for the jobs I applied to, yet I get told repeatedly that the amount of applicants better suited for them is so large that I get cut prior to the interviews. I am aware of several issues with my CV, but I am not sure how to overcome them: 1. I have no real experience in obtaining funding. 2. I have not published a lot. 3. My research subjects seem to be not that popular nowadays (representation theory of finite groups and stuff). 4. During my time in academia, I, unfortunately, did not bother building a network, becoming a visible part of the academic community and now lack connections (and consequently letters of reference). 5. My contractual focus in academia was mainly on research, not teaching, and most of the teaching I did was not independent teaching, at least not on paper. These are just the problems I am currently aware of but I do not know how relevant they actually are. All these points are definitely somewhat approachable while working in academia, but since I am now outside, how can I tackle them? Is there anything else I can do? Or do I have to just keep applying and hope for the best? --- Added (28.08.): Given all the questions in the comments and answers (Thank you all for your input!), I guess I need to add a couple more issues to my list: 6. My affinity towards programming, simulation, data science, optimization, and the like is small at best. 7. I am currently employed in the finance industry (banking supervision) and am not going to have any leading role here in the foreseeable future. From what you tell me, it seems that together, these points would make the 'Fachhochschule' path almost unattainable. Point 6. is also a reason for me to believe that it would be difficult to find something actually interesting outside of academia. As to why I want to return to academia, the short answer is: Because I love teaching mathematics and there is no other place to do this properly. But then again, I get your arguments and it is probably a good idea to stop dreaming and face reality.<issue_comment>username_1: This is advice that probably only works for the US. Here, we have a few thousand, primarily undergraduate, primarily teaching institutions, all of which have a need for a few mathematicians. Most undergraduate programs here require at least a bit of math or statistics since they are more general in nature than in Germany. These colleges normally have a tenure track for faculty requiring a probation period of six or seven years. I got a strong foundation for graduate school at such a place, for example. At the other end of the scale, there are at least a few very top research institutions (Stanford, CMU, Duke, ...) that have a special category of faculty - Professor of the Practice or similar. These institutions have a large need for a lot of mathematicians for the same reason and the position is intended to free the research faculty from a lot of teaching duties. These tend not to be tenure track, but are quite secure and have long term contracts. The undergraduate program depends on high quality teaching from this faculty. Both of the above sorts of positions normally require some research, but not at the same level as at a top research university's research faculty. It can make a nice life. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: At the risk of being a downer, here is a perspective you are probably not too fond of. Given your long list of self-identified issues with your CV, you have two options: * You work on these issues so as to be able to better compete against others who have CVs without these holes. This might be difficult: Others at your age already have teaching experience, more publications, etc., and furthermore have a support network that can help them navigate the process of finding positions because they are currently in academia. In other words, you are fighting an uphill battle because -- empirically, based on your past experience applying for positions -- there are people out there who have better CVs than you at your age, and there will always be. In other words, you need to catch up, and you need to do that quickly because you are not getting younger and you don't want to compete with people who have the same CV as you but are five or eight years younger than you. In any case, as you have probably understood by now, continuing to apply with the CV you currently have is an exercise in futility and, given that it didn't work in the past, is unlikely going to work in the future if the basis for your applications does not substantially change -- so don't waste your time on applications until you think that you are in a place where that's actually worth your time, energy, and emotions. * You make your peace with the situation and put your energy into a career doing something you enjoy and are good at. This is not a forum for advice on personal issues, but I would nonetheless suggest that you take a closer look at that second option simply because the first, to me, sounds like a prescription for many years of unhappiness with uncertain (maybe unlikely) outcome. It is what it is, but you've now successfully landed in an industry job -- so make that work, find happiness in what you are doing there, and put your energy into something that you can see providing you with happiness. That may be being ambitious about your industry career, wanting to learn and grow. Or it may be considering your job a job, and finding happiness after 5pm when you come home, caring for a family or for your hobbies. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: #### It is not a great time to look for academic jobs right now My knowledge of this is only anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt. However, my understanding is that the COVID pandemic has been financially damaging to many universities (due to loss of students) and so they are downsizing to cut costs. At my own university in Australia, there has been a pay-freeze for staff, a blanket rule of non-renewal of contract positions (other than grant-funded positions), plus voluntary redundancies for permanent staff. The flow-on result has been that there are a large number of academics seeking positions, and not many positions available to absorb them. Since labour supply is high, and labour demand is low, the universities are getting a surfeit of high-quality applications. I do not know if the position in Germany is the same as in my own country, so it is hard for me to comment confidently on the job market there. In my own country, I have heard a rule-of-thumb that ---in the current academic job climate--- people are getting positions roughly one increment below their normal level (e.g., a full professor would get a position as associate professor, an associate professor as assistant professor, etc.). So for the positions you applied for, it wouldn't surprise me if there were applicants with many years of academic experience, probably even with good research records. From what you have described of your record, I would expect that they are accurate in stating that they had better applicants. The present situation is not necessarily permanent. If the pandemic subsides (fingers crossed) and travel restrictions and lockdowns are eased, students will come back to the campus and some universities will then go back into an expansionary phase. (Though for a countervailing take on the matter, at least in the context of the US, see [Reynolds 2015](https://www.amazon.com.au/Education-Apocalypse-How-Happened-Survive/dp/1594037914/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&qid=1630112428&refinements=p_27%3AGlenn+Reynolds&s=books&sr=1-4&text=Glenn+Reynolds).) If this occurs then it is likely that there will be a period where the volume and quality of applications for academic positions subsides, due to higher demand relative to supply. In terms of trying to make yourself competitive for academic jobs, while working outside academia, the main thing you can do is to try to use your industry work as a spring-board for research ideas, and then try to convert these ideas into published papers. If you can identify some research that would be likely to attract industry funding, all the better. This is difficult, since it is something that will probably end up occurring on top of your regular job, but if you can get some research published and open up some funding opportunities, that will help bolster your CV for future academic applications. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: One alternative might be a professorship at a Fachhochschule. In Germany, these professorships usually require at least three years of professional experience in industry. The pool of suitable professors is small, hence chances to obtain a professorship are reasonable. Be warned of the requirements: * Proven track record in industry, which might be shown through industry publications, patents, leadership positions, cutting edge projects, working in R&D or similar. * Teaching experience. While most mathematicians have this experience from their graduate study, it helps to get a Lehrauftrag, i.e. doing some teaching while being employed in industry. * Experience in an applied research topic relevant for applied research done at Fachhochschulen. Think rather about simulation, data science, cryptography (which might get public funding for research) than finance or insurance. It furthermore helps to: * Have a wide network in industry. You might try to connect in local organizations, be active in online communities, visit events or have a job with many contacts. * Be able to teach different subjects than math, e.g. in computer science or physics. * Make believable to be able to acquire third party funding for research, at Fachhochschulen usually from federal or state ministries or the EU. It helps to work in R&D or have a track record of customer acquisition while being employed in industry. * Have a track record in leadership capabilities for your future working group. This can be demonstrated by leading people (interns?) in industry or perhaps student teaching assistants at universities. * Publish while being employed in industry. It does not matter whether old topics form pure math or new topics stemming from your industry job. (You do have a jobs where math is involved?) * Have supervised many student theses (bachelor, master, PhD), either while being at university or while being in industry. * Have experience in academic self-government or at least show motivation to help your future department in constructively working in committees. * Know current teaching techniques (online, asynchronous, digital, inverted classroom, …), perhaps have experience in them, and have an idea which of those might be suitable for your courses. * Come across as motivated and motivating person. You need to be able to motivate both industry and students to do research with you. And you need intrinsic motivation to be motivated while working with failure in grant applications. If you want to try this route, I would * Look at openings for suitable professorships ([jobs.zeit.de](http://jobs.zeit.de)) and see what is in need. * Look for a jobs that is suitable for current (or better: future) research trends. You see current trends at these openings. * Show excellent performance at your industry jobs. * Do things that are visible and connected to your jobs. * Build a network. * Try to understand funding structures for applied research. * Try to stay connected to academia. * Start applying after 2 years in industry, be it to gain experience. Most of these suggestions are also excellent suggestions if you want to have a career in industry and similarly you should follow standard advice for having a career in industry on this path. Feel free to ask further questions here. You should also know how to contact me. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: As you mentioned, it would be easier if you were in Academy, so one option that comes to mind is to come back to Academy as a researcher (Which is where you already have experience) and once you are in, start looking for opportunities to switch into teaching/lecturing. But this time make sure to work on what you described in point 4. > > During my time in academia, I, unfortunately, did not bother building a network, becoming a visible part of the academic community and now lack connections (and consequently letters of reference). > > > Upvotes: -1
2021/08/28	484	1,971	<issue_start>username_0: I wanted to apply for an official semester break during my PhD; I am enrolled in a German University; my concern is that could I show the paper published during the semester break in the dissertation?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think that should be a worry, though I'm not from Germany. Doctoral students do a lot of productive things when they aren't "on the clock". And, how would they know, unless you make an issue of it? It is pretty likely that you worked on the paper during "official time" anyway. But you might also have a quiet word with your supervisor. "Hey, I had a weird thought..." Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I assume with "semester break" you mean taking a Freisemester, although it is unclear to me what the point of that as a PhD student would be. The general idea of a Freisemester is that the student is busy with something other than their studies; and they'll usually not be able to progress via e.g. sitting exams. To figure out how your university handles Freisemester, and what is and what is not possible during them, you will need to consult the Prüfungsordnung, and in your case, also the Promotionsordnung. After you have done that, discuss the idea with your PhD supervisor and query them regarding whatever is unclear in the official rules. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Traditionally, doing a PhD is detached from being enrolled as a student in Germany. More recently, it has become customary to be enrolled as a PhD student and/or be part of a graduate school for a certain minimal amount of time (e.g. 2 years). Nevertheless, it does not mean you cannot use results obtained outside that time for your PhD. So there shouldn't be a problem, unless there is a requirement that you have to be enrolled or part of the graduate school for a certain consecutive period of time. But, again, this will not be a problem for the material you include in your thesis. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/28	760	3,203	<issue_start>username_0: Are there any disadvantages with working for non-tenure track professors? Is it possible that they get fired and you need to restart with someone else? Do they have less funding? Any other drawbacks? Currently applying to phd programs.<issue_comment>username_1: The one concern I would have with pursuing a doctorate with a non-tenure track professor is the potential they could leave the university before you finish. Then you would have to find another faculty member to advise your research. Tenured professors do leave universities, but the likelihood is less with more secure employment and a commitment by the university. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This answer might only apply in the US and only applies in certain very restricted situations. I know a few people (maybe half a dozen) in CS who would be suitable as advisors, depending on your interest. There is a special category of faculty at some top US universities called, perhaps, "Professor of the Practice". They aren't tenured (or tenurable), but serve on long term renewable contracts (about seven years). The ones I'm thinking of hold solid doctorates themselves, but are primarily responsible for teaching undergraduates. They all do research themselves, but it is more likely to be in something like pedagogy of their field. They are quite prominent in the (CS) profession and are frequently seen at conferences, and such. For these few people, having them as an advisor would be safe enough. I don't know if there are similar situations elsewhere and, even here, they are a bit uncommon, though they tend to occur at top universities (Stanford, Duke, ...). And note, that I haven't asked any of them if they have done such a thing. But, for the general case, it would be quite risky. They might leave for other reasons than getting fired. If their main subfield isn't mainstream you might have trouble finding another advisor to take their place, necessitating a change of field or a move. Much better to have someone with stable employment and the time necessary to give you proper guidance. Even non-tenured, but tenure track, people can fail on that. Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There are always risks with any advisor. For instance, I had one die on me. But it's perfectly possible to have advisors who aren't tenure-track, especially if they are primarily researchers. For instance, I did my MS with a lab director who was also a practicing MD, and taught only an occasional course. He had several PhD candidates working under him. Another who I seriously considered doing a PhD with was primarily a researcher at (large tech company), who likewise taught the occasional course in his field. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You are getting politically correct but misleading answers. The canonical answer to your titular question is usually just: no. One way to think about it: would you perhaps like to be tenure track faculty at a research university some day? If so, make sure to choose as your advisor someone whose research is top notch and well known. With very rare exceptions, these people are all tenured or tenure-track faculty. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/28	806	3,218	<issue_start>username_0: I'm a last year PhD student; I love doing research and mentoring younger researchers. I'm looking to apply for faculty this Fall. In my field, there are also multiple companies where you can currently publish and do open-ended research. I'm strongly doubting between both paths: more money, and more time for life&individual research (i.e. my own ideas, letting my students mostly come up with their own) in industry vs. more mentoring opportunities, and research freedom being assured for all my career [modulo tenure&funding]. My questions are not about the doubts, but about applying with these doubts: * Do people often reject offers from top universities to go to research positions in industry? Is it badly regarded? (Professors in those universities would still be my research colleagues if I go to industry) * Is it ok to ask for significant help (letters of recommendation, feedback on statements, invited talks, emailing PIs of other universities ...) if I think the probability of me eventually wanting a faculty job is between 10% and 40%?<issue_comment>username_1: It's currently August. At least in North America, if you want to start a new job in the next three months, you might get hired into an industry position but you are unlikely to get a faculty position because they do not hire in that time frame. If you want to start a new job in 13 months (September), you might get a faculty position, but you are unlikely to get an industry position now because they do not hire that far ahead. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: > > Do people often reject offers from top universities to go to research positions in industry? > > > It happens. I don't have any statistics about whether it happens "often," but I also don't think this is relevant. You should make the decision that makes the most sense for you. > > Is it badly regarded? (Professors in those universities would still be my research colleagues if I go to industry) > > > Anecdotally: I recently left academia and the response I had from professors and other researchers in my field was almost uniformly supportive. My general take: People generally want to see you succeed, and have are busy enough with their own problems that they aren't going to bother holding a grudge. If you are able to productively collaborate after you leave, most people will care much more about the work than your position. The few that do care, are not worth keeping as collaborators. > > Is it ok to ask for significant help (letters of recommendation, feedback on statements, invited talks, emailing PIs of other universities ...) if I think the probability of me eventually wanting a faculty job is between 10% and 40%? > > > Yes. First, I don't agree with the framing that this is significant help, because every faculty person is fielding requests like this from many people every year, and not all of them will end up in academia. Second, you have to advocate for your own best interest. If you don't make these requests, you are 100% certain to not get a faculty job. If you have even a 10% interest in a faculty job, then not asking for letters, etc, is working against your own interest. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/29	1,174	4,814	<issue_start>username_0: I have a lovely professor who I've become very close with over the past three years. I am an international student and we are both from the same original culture. I recently finished my master's and am now working in a job in industry. I really admire my advisor and he is one of my role models. I had my defense a few weeks ago. He lives in another city and is planning to drive to the city that I live with his wife. He invited me out for a lunch with his wife. I’m very excited to go, but I do not really know what to buy for him and his wife. I am going to meet him in person after a long time, all our meetings were over Zoom so far. It is the first time that I am going to meet his wife. Considering that they are coming to be in my city and they will be staying at a hotel overnight. How can I be a good host since they are driving to my city? What should I buy? Thanks for your advice. They have not chosen any restaurant yet, should I initiate and choose a restaurant, and pay the bills? He doesn't drink wine. At some point, I would like to go back to do my Ph.D. So I would like to leave him with a good impression.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know your culture, but why do you even consider buying something for him? He is the one who invited you, so he wants to give something to you. It's quite common that people receive gifts at their graduation. Also, think from his perspective. His salary is probably higher than yours. He can buy what he likes anyhow. How would you feel getting a present from a former student? There are even laws prohibiting the acceptance of presents (depending on value, situation and country of course). (My perspective does perhaps not reflect the general opinion, but I don't like receiving random presents from people I barely know on a personal level.) Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As far as generic "western academic culture" is concerned, getting a gift for your advisor in such a situation is not merely unnecessary but might even make things slightly awkward. Advisors are expected to not accept gifts of value from their students, and while you may have graduated, your plans for a future PhD still put your relationship in the general ballpark of advisor/mentee. Proposing a restaurant for lunch (or maybe a few different ones to account for your advisors preferences) would make sense (as you might know the city better than him), and conveys your interest in having this meeting. If I put myself in the shoes of your advisor, I'd probably intend to invite you for the lunch. You should of course be prepared to pay for your own meal, but I'd be sceptical about an attempt to invite your advisor and his wife. My understanding is that having lunch with you is not the main reason for the trip, but rather an "since I am in the city anyway"-deal. If this is the case, I'd either leave it at that, or maybe issue an easily side-stepped "if you'd like me to show you some of the local highlights, please let me know"-offer. Since you mention you and your advisor both being from the same non-Canadian unspecified culture, there is of course a possibility for the etiquette in your culture to clash with the recommendations above. Navigating such a situation would probably depend on a specific knowledge of your advisor as a person, so even if we knew the culture, I doubt we could help much. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Since you were invited, the professor may be expecting to pay and should therefore choose the place. But a book is pretty safe. Perhaps something from the important literature of your own culture/country or something from the literature of Canada. It should have only "token" value, for many reasons. And it should not be something personal. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: > > He invited me out for a lunch with his wife ... How can I be a good host since they are driving to my city? What should I buy? > > > 1. If he invited you, you're not the host at the event you're attending. 2. The fact the they're staying in your city of residence does not make you their host, unless you've invited them to some activity yourself. 3. Even if you were the host - typically, it's the guest that buys something for the host. That being said, I'd suggest: * Buy nothing for the lunch; or if you must, something physically small, symbolic, and not expensive. * Consider offering some sort of physical token or memento your shared experience, if there's something which fits well. Don't force this. * Consider offering them a tour or visit of a place you are familiar with as a local of your city and they may not be (or perhaps it's enough that the wife isn't). Not during lunch, of course, but perhaps before lunch, after lunch or on another day. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/29	738	3,224	<issue_start>username_0: I'll be starting a postdoc position in a Canadian institute soon. However, I could not secure any independent lectureship in the course of my contract interval (but just a limited joint lectureship with my PI which is 3 sessions of a 17-session lecture). Since teaching seems like a gap in my resume, I am wondering whether or not it is possible to propose a graduate-level course like "Special Topics in Robotics: X" to the department I am affiliated with, so that, should they accept it, I can present my own course. So, if such a request is reasonable and already heard of, 1- What does a course proposal look like? It would be nice if one can share samples or any resources related to that. 2- My contract is one year. Thus, are north-American departments generally agile enough in processing these proposals so that if I submit my proposal in this fall semester, I can lecture it in the upcoming spring one?<issue_comment>username_1: That depends on the department. I would just ask. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable request. So asking should be perfectly fine. If anything, it shows that you are proactive in making this postdoc a success for you and the department. There isn't much more we can add. Since you seem somewhat unsure, it might be a good idea to do a partial course first with an experienced educator followed by your own course. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Most graduate program have special topics courses the contents of which are to be defined by the instructor. The hard part is to convince the graduate chair that you have material for an entire course at that level, and that you are fit to teach it. In addition, you will need to clear this with whomever is paying you unless your appointment explicitly states that you are allowed this: I doubt your nominal boss or bosses will be thrilled to learn you will devote a significant fraction of your time to teach/develop a course rather than work on the project you were hired to complete. Finally, I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve. Teaching a course for the first time is very time consuming, and this will certainly affect your research productivity. Moreover, this isn’t some 1st year course with some canonical textbook we’re talking about, so expect to spend quite a bit of time on this and not much on your research. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: While details will of course depend on the institution, I have seen exactly this done for exactly this reason in a US institution. Any large research university always has lots of special seminar sessions and special lecture series and such going on. The boundary between "extracurricular research club" and "minimal credit seminar" is often not too large. If you've got a supportive professor, they will likely be able to help you navigate departmental processes. The other key challenge, however, will be advertising well enough to attract a sufficient number of students to allow the course to run. Typically, there is some minimum number of registrants you need to have, and if you can't get that many students registered the course will be cancelled and you will not get to teach it after all. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
2021/08/29	834	3,710	<issue_start>username_0: I was wondering if a nomenclature section is necessary, especially when you have described parameters in the body of the paper right after the formula. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to avoid describing the parameters in the body and put them in a different section. This is because it would be really hard for the reader to get back and forth between where he is and the nomenclature section. Besides, I think having both the nomenclature section and the description of the parameters in the body is just too much. Therefore, I don't think it is a good idea to include such a table. However, I've seen people stating that including nomenclature can make a good first impression on the referees of your work. I would be very happy if I could have your opinion on this!<issue_comment>username_1: In most scientific fields it is ususual to have a separate table of variables/nomenclature for a paper but it is common in books. The reason is that books are much longer, and in this case it is useful for the reader to be able to find all the important variables/special terms in the work defined in one place. You may have noticed that when you consult a large scientific book (e.g., in mathematics) and go to a later section, it can be difficult to track down the meaning of the variables from where they are first used in the body. Having a table of variables assists with this, so in long books it is fairly common. (Similarly, long scientific books often have a list of figures, and index, etc. A table of variables/nomenclature might be useful in a paper if it is long and has a large amount of notation/special terms. However, most papers are sufficiently short and succinct that such a table would be unecessary. You are right that this is usually too much. Even if it is necessary to include such a table, it would be usual to define the variables as you go through the material as normal, but then have a table to summarise and collect this information in addition to defining things as you go in the body. Some fields/journals may have a special style where such a table is expected. You should be able to determine this by browsing some papers in the journal of interest, and/or reading their style guide. Unless there is a particular expectation from the journal, always apply the Golden Rule of academic writing --- what would be useful to you in the paper if you were the reader? Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Why not check how papers you find well-written and good are organized in this matter? In other words, use “good” papers as a template. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: This is primarily meant to improve readability by ensuring continuity and reducing breaks. Naturally, that becomes relevant when there are a lot of formulae/equations one after the other. Explaining each one would create breaks and may come at the expense of flow. In work where there are only a handful of equations, it would be more natural to describe the nomenclature in the manner you describe. A rough analogy would be maintenance of a separate references section rather than including the reference in-line. Just are there are different referencing styles, each with its own pros and cons, there are different styles of expressing mathematical statements. It's probably best to stick to whatever is more usual in your specific field/journal. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I know of some journals in my field that consider a nomenclature section/table mandatory. However, I completely agree with the opinion of OP on it and would therefore conclude that one should only include a nomenclature section if asked for by the journal. Upvotes: 1
2021/08/30	501	2,090	<issue_start>username_0: I'm applying to phd programs after being out of school for a couple of years working as a software engineer. The problem is that all my research and work experience has been in machine learning, but I'm not that interested in this field. Not only so, there's too much competition in this area for me to get into a good program. What should i do?<issue_comment>username_1: Why do you think you are pigeonholed? Many people will do a PhD in a different area than their undergraduate (masters). People will do postdocs and become professors in different (but related) departments than their PhD degree. Assuming your undergrad is in any hard discipline (engineering, math, physics, cs, etc.) you can basically do a phd in any hard discipline. When applying to a PhD program you are going to be evaluated based on your potential, not based on what you've already done. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: With a bachelors in the US, starting doctoral study doesn't have you pigeonholed at all. In fact, if you have some research experience in pretty much anything then you will be a good candidate, other things being equal (grades, letters...). Doctoral study (which I'd recommend over a MS, here) leaves you lots of time to choose an area of specialization. The only thing you need to be clear about is the general field, such as Math or CS, say. The early program is filled with advanced coursework and probably only an introduction to research. The first hurdle is (most places) comprehensive exams. Only then do you need to be real specific and choose a dissertation advisor. The situation is a bit different in some lab sciences where you need to join a lab earlier, but form most fields you are a "free agent" for at least a couple of years. I advise doctoral study since you can get funded as a doctoral student (as a TA, perhaps) and have tuition forgiven. That isn't as likely for an MS student. But since you've been out of school a couple of years, try to reestablish contact with old professors who can verify your skill and dedication. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/30	224	870	<issue_start>username_0: My paper is under review in an Elsevier journal. It has been over a month and it's still in review stage. It might take another month for the reviews to come back. I should have submitted it to arxiv before submitting to the journal. However, is it too late to submit it now to arxiv? The journal is "Additive Manufacturing".<issue_comment>username_1: [Elsevier article sharing policies](https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing) > > Authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time. > > > So yes you can put your article on the arXiv. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You should check the journal's policy about this. If not specified, ask the contact person for the journal. In sociology this practice is widely accepted, but I suppose there are disciplinary and/or publishers' differences. Upvotes: 0
2021/08/30	2,256	9,210	<issue_start>username_0: Many of you will know that, whether per subscription fees or via open access models, there is a ridiculously absurd amount of money flowing to many big (or medium-size) publishers for getting our research outputs (i.e. papers, etc.) published in high-quality venues in the field. The problem: Content and peer reviews (I think, the most important artifacts from a scientific point of view) are delivered largely for free and voluntarily. In some fields, such as math, physics, CS, EE, and related, even proper camera-ready type setting (e.g. via LaTeX) is also very often done by the researchers themselves. Moreover, in fact, the downstream (i.e. after-acceptance) editorial process in traditional publishing companies is nowadays (for a number of reasons I don't want to elaborate on here) more likely to introduce faults through the various conversions and process stages that are involved. I'm speaking not only of [my own experience](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/154353/94523) but have even seen publications that have been corrected using post-prints, personal copies of authors, etc. So, my question again: Can't we just extend well-known and widely-used archival platforms such as [arXiv](https://arxiv.org), biorXiv, [zenodo.org](https://zenodo.org), etc. with a light-weight infrastructure to perform peer review (e.g. via an integration with EasyChair or the like and building up editorial teams) and transfer the whole peer review life-cycle from established publishers (with over the years questionably evolved business models) to such platforms? A tiny fraction of the (mostly tax payers') money currently flowing to such publishers would be invested in running the mentioned infrastructure. My naive assumption is that no relevant quality loss (if not even a gain in quality) is to be expected in certain fields of science after an appropriate ramp-up phase. The only relevant issue, I can see for now, is the issue of a lacking reputation or trustworthiness of such a platform as a publishing venue where, I suppose, it will be a matter of time for this issue to be overcome. One of the reasons why I am asking is because I think that the mentioned amounts of money can be better invested in science for the public than it is now. A question (totally obvious to me) that I've pondered over for a long time but was afraid to ask. Thanks for your thoughts on these, I apologise, probably too progressive and naive ideas. Fortunately, similar concerns are shared [elsewhere](https://blog.wikimedia.de/2021/12/07/datentracking-die-schoene-neue-welt-der-wissenschaftsverlage/). *In response to some of the comments: Archival has very little to do with publishing. This question is about modern peer-reviewed publishing. Please, also note that with this question I very much value professional editorial work and am looking for solutions in support of EiCs, editorial committees, and reviewers. By no means is this question to be understood in any way as a critique of any of the work done by EiCs, editorial committees, and peer reviewers, not at all. If so then it was definitely not my intention.<issue_comment>username_1: There are [Diamond open access](https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA190013) journals (which are free to both author and reader) run as arXiv [overlay journals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlay_journal). An example in my area is [Logical Methods in Computer Science](https://lmcs.episciences.org/), which is generally well-regarded in the field (and indexed whereever it needs to be). Besides the already existing journals, there also seem to be plans for additional journals of this type to better cover the various disciplines. However, founding a new journal takes a lot of effort from a team of respected (and thus very busy) academics. Early on, it will not be on all indices and thus less attractive to the unfortunate amongst us whose administrations force these issues. Taking an established journal away from a publisher to move to this framework is, even where possible, a radical act and usually pure inertia will stand in its way. Nevertheless, my sentiment is that Diamond open access (with arXiv providing the long-term storage) is the way to go; and I believe that this is a rather popular perspective. Despite being lightweight, an arXiv overlay journal still has some monetary costs. They seem to be enough to be an issue, but also to pale in comparison to journal subscriptions or open access charges by commercial publishers. My best guess why institutions/governments aren't more eager to support them is that traditional publishers have a lot of lobbying power, while arguing pro-Diamond open access is more of a hobby. Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: tl;dr: we could, but we won't, because we're in a [Nash equilibrium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium).* It would be the better outcome for all involved parties (except the traditional publishers) if we would find ourselves in the situation that you sketch. However, if a few individual parties make a move towards the optimum, while others all stick with the current strategy, the few movers lose. Hence, the change is unlikely to happen. --- Suppose that you're a PhD student, who seeks a decent venue for their next publication. You can either go for arXiv, where science is free, or you can go for a traditional venue, where it is not. In a few years, however, you might want to apply for a tenure-track position at some top university, and the competition will be fierce. Most of your competitors will still go for the traditional publication venues, even if you move on. Current practice at hiring committees is to look for candidates with many publications at the top venues, which is typically measured by traditional journals and conferences. Why would you run the risk of having your best work not recognized by future hiring committees? Surely, you shouldn't run the risk of kneecapping your own future employability, so submission to traditional venues it is. Suppose that you're a tenure-tracker, who seeks tenure. You want to apply for grants that bolster your tenure application. To get those grants, it helps if you can show that the community considers you an expert in the field. How do you establish your name as an expert in the field? For instance, by serving on the program committees of the top conferences, or becoming a member of the editorial board of the top journals in your field. You may consider reviewing for arXiv, but there is only one tenured spot at your university; the four other tenure-trackers with whom you must compete will all review for the top journals/conferences at the traditional publishers. Surely, you shouldn't run the risk of not getting tenure, so reviewing for traditional venues it is. Suppose that you're tenured. This is the moment! You have freedom, so now you can finally be the change you want to see in the world! But hold on, you're writing research papers together with a new batch of PhD students who all would like to be tenure-trackers someday, and you apply for funding jointly with tenure-trackers who all would like to be tenured today. Will you run the risk of kneecapping your direct colleagues for the sake of your principles? --- In all these examples, it's not impossible to advance in a scientific career while moving along the arXiv path. In all these examples, it's probably over-the-top to characterize choosing the arXiv path as kneecapping yourself and your coworkers; any real damage may be subtle and small. The point is, though, that the academic career ladder is murderously competitive, and every little bit just might help edge out your competitors. It stands to reason that not many people would allow themselves to risk any disadvantages in this fierce competition, and hence I see no path to get from the current situation to the situation you suggest. Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: If you restrict attention to areas like pure math, where papers are mainly text with equations, then Arvix overlay journals can work really well. However, different areas of science have needs that are not so compatible with the Arxiv. Of course, other preprint servers might work. One problem is with supplemental files. Consider the [supplemental videos](https://www.pnas.org/content/112/47/14495/tab-figures-data) and how they appear one this webpage of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Nice descriptions, links to forms for copyright permission. Now consider the [supplemental videos](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02845) in this preprint of the arxiv. All you get is a title. Images on the arxiv are another issue. A few of my papers I did not post on the arxiv as the images do not compress well and I did not want to fiddle with creating low-resolution images just to get the figures small enough for the arxiv. (The size limits used to be smaller.) Recently the Arxiv has added the "papers with code" feature, but this mostly assumes hosting the code elsewhere. I think the needs of journals are too diverse to count on overlay journals to cover too much of math and science. Upvotes: 3
2021/08/30	494	1,978	<issue_start>username_0: I can’t find an answer that explicitly says that a case study is a type of research (e.g. analytical research paper, persuasive research paper, definition research paper, etc.). There’s this site that says that a case study is a research methodology (it’s the third chapter of a research paper).<issue_comment>username_1: The case study is a qualitative research method in several disciplines, mostly in the social sciences.1 A research paper that builds on this method might also be referred to as a "case study".2 1 See e.g. <NAME>. (2007) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 2 See e.g. <NAME>. (2005) ‘Several Roads Lead to International Norms, but Few Via International Socialization: A Case Study of the European Commission’. International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 861–898. Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A "case study" can mean several things: 1. A small[\] piece of original research that was published as part of another research paper or review. For example: a paper describes a theory and subsequently applies it to a small and well-defined subset (a case) of possible applications of the theory, thereby providing anecdotal evidence that the theory is useful, 2. Particularly in the social sciences, a "case study" may be described in a separate paper, and present anecdotal evidence (or contradiction) of a theory that was published elsewhere. (So similar to (1), but the "case study" is now a separate publication) 3. A study that is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but used for example to promote new equipment from a commercial manufacturer by demonstrating its usefulness for the given "case" (this is also called "application note"). Note also that some journals have very specific requirements for the publication types they accept, and that those types are defined by the journal in question. [\] see commments Upvotes: 2
2021/08/30	385	1,687	<issue_start>username_0: I participated in some prestigious conferences as a poster presenter but, these conferences do not issue certificates so, when I list them in my CV, what is the proof for the reader that I did participate? I once asked a conference for a certificate of participation, the organiser told me "we don't issue certificates but I will check with my team" and she never replied. Is not it normal to ask for certificates of participation? How can I list them in my CV otherwise?<issue_comment>username_1: Certificates of participation are usually for reimbursement of funds or otherwise required by someone in the chain of organizations paying for your attendance: universities, grant agencies, etc. It's a way to demonstrate that yes you actually attended the conference and didn't just use the travel funds to be a tourist in the conference city. You do not need such a certificate to put it on your CV. You certainly wouldn't include any information about the certificate in the CV itself even if you received one. Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: For almost all purposes, people trust that what you put in your CV is correct. If you say you participated in a poster session, nearly everyone will believe that you did. On the other hand, a poster session is a relatively minor thing among the other items there. In the rare case that actual verification is required, the doubters can contact the conference chair or, perhaps, the poster chair. These people are visible. There may even be a visible record of participation on a web site or a follow up publication. That's not an excuse, of course, to pad your CV with chaff. Upvotes: 4
2021/08/31	1,948	8,193	<issue_start>username_0: I would like to ask something about the master program. I'm a student from one of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and I have a bad GPA and an undergraduate history full of fails in the basic subjects like linear algebra and calculus. I have 22 fails on subjects and five of them have grades close to zero. My mean grade, concerning all the subjects that I have done until now, is 5.0 (in a 0-10 scale) On the other hand, I've completed years of scientific projects in my undergraduate research area (these projects are sponsored by government) and I intend to publish at least two scientific papers in the next few years, before I conclude my undergraduate course. I've participate in various scientific meetings, too. So if you open my CV you will find more things than an average student; despite all of this, as I said, I simply have really bad grades. Now, I would like to do a Master's degree or a PhD abroad. Obviously, due to my grades I'm in a bad position, but I know that some universities in Germany do not select the candidates by the grades just by the curriculum. I don't know... I would like to ask: which kind of university does not select the candidates by the grades on undergraduate history? In general, what should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: This is only a partial answer, since I do not whether it is true that grad schools in Europe or elsewhere make decisions without considering your grades. Hopefully others from different parts of the world can write supplementary answers (or suggest edits to this one). > > which kind of university do not select the candidates by the grades on undergraduate history? > > > Partial answer: not in the US or Canada. There are [some other posts](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/324/how-do-you-get-a-bad-transcript-past-ph-d-admissions) that discuss how to get a bad transcript past PhD admissions in the US. But to be clear, your odds of being admitted to a reputable program in the US as an international student after failing 22 classes are zero. Hopefully others can address this question for other parts of the world. > > In general, what should I do? > > > In the short term, I think your only hope is to use your network. If you have been productive in research and are getting publications, then you presumably have an advisor or coauthors or others working in your field that are familiar with your work. One of these people might be willing to take you, or to recommend you to one of their contacts. If you are wealthy and can afford to pay tuition in cash, then you may have some options as well. Failing this, I think you are going to have a really hard time finding a spot. The competition for admission as an international student is quite intense. Perhaps someone will be able to name a country where grades are not taken into consideration, but even in this case, it is still very difficult to secure a spot as an international student. Finally, I would point out that many people with stellar undergraduate records are unable to find a permanent position in mathematics research. So, I always recommend to all applicants to consider options outside of the university (both now and in terms of your post-PhD goals). As a lifelong student, it is easy to think that all intellectual life resides in the university and that all other careers entail mindless drudgery, but the reality can be quite different. And if you do not pursue a PhD now, you can also revisit it at a later time, by which point you may have more options. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Few things to note here. If your application won't be rejected outright, you will be asked about your GPA. And you better show improvement over the past few years. If you've been partying hard instead of putting the time to the books, whoever reviewing your application might let it slide provided you show strong results in the last few years. Things happen, people have personal issues or just some hard time in their lives - it may all be written off. But you are at a disadvantage in a highly competitive field, and would only hurt yourself first and foremost if trying to go that route without high commitment. With that said, there is one thing that raises some red flags in what you said... You mentioned in the comments that your grades improved for at least past 3 semesters, and in the post "I intend to publish at least two scientific papers in the next few years, before conclude my undergraduate course"... Just how long is your undergrad? Getting your results published takes time, and everyone is sounding like a broken record when telling undergrads that, but that's just a thing... Speaking from experience, even if you have written reports on those government grants personally and have what peers are describing as publishable results, that does not automatically convert it into papers, especially if there is no supervisor to guide you through the process as you are just starting. Even if all you need to do is copy&paste from the reports and make it more concise, that still does not get you published papers. There is a work to be put in, and quite a lot of work at that - especially if you don't have it at almost the muscle memory level. There is a really big concern about the discrepancy between your perception of where you are with your current research and where you factually are. I do not mean it in a way that you are currently underperforming, just that like 9 out of 10 people intending to publish a paper or two during undergrad end up with none unless their supervisor gets involved. Finally, a suggestion about networking proposed in other answers is a good one, but it also does beg a question - why do you want to do a MS/PhD abroad? Are there specific labs you want to get involved with? If so, get your results and put them forth in your application, they might get interested in them and you will get your shot at it. Or, at least, if they see value in you they might give you some way more valuable advice on how to proceed than the entirety of SE (again, networking!). It might be against their university policies to accept you with bad GPA but they might get put a word for you for some other lab in another university which could accept you. To wrap it up: 1. Commitment. Do take your work very seriously, especially in academia. 2. Provable results. Start with putting your results together in a ready-to-show form, ideally publications. Conference papers and posters are just shy of that because they commonly lack a huuuge deal of pondering about what is the most valuable part of your research - that work is just kind of there. 3. Networking. At the beginning of your career, people to help you navigate the academic world are especially significant. Collaborators are valuable. Until you have built a solid experience and reputation of your own, seek mentorship and help, work with more experienced colleagues. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, there are master studies in Germany where your grades are not very important. In general, there is this systm called numerus clausus (NC for short), which basically tells you which average grade you need to have to be admitted. The NC is dependent on subject and university. The NC is not fixed, but is constantly adjusted dependent on a number of parameters, one of the most important one being the expected number of applicants. If you want to study medicine, the NC is often very high, in physics, it is often quite low. In areas where there are less applicants, sometimes there isn't an NC at all, meaning everyone that fullfills the basic requirements will be accepted. This is also the case for some Master programs. [Here](https://www.hochschulkompass.de/en/404.html) is a website that lets you search for NC-free programs ("whithout admission restrictions"). That being said, getting into a PhD program without a master in Germany is uncommon and not easy, and next to impossible with a "bad" bachelor. But if you find a good master course and improve your grades, a subsequent PhD might be possible. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/31	1,173	4,813	<issue_start>username_0: My supervisor has asked me to compile a list (in order of preference) of potential examiners for my viva. ### Subject area How close to my own subject area should I look? My thoughts so far are that I would like to be examined by someone who has done work that is as close as possible to the topic of my thesis. It's true that someone in a neighbouring field will probably see the flaws in my work more keenly that another might do, and will certainly have no trouble calling me out if I have missed key literature. I do think the thesis is basically sound, and hopefully will pass the critique of such an examiner, and the corrections will be maximally useful. Someone who's specialism is further away seems likely to ask broader questions. I hope I could answer them adequately, but I'd be less confident of it. It would be frustrating to get lost in aspects that where not really central to the work. I also wonder if the corrections would be somewhat less useful. ### Academic esteem Is there a good reason to want an examiner with high academic prestige? Clearly they need to have enough recent publications that I am clear on what field they work in, but beyond that, does it matter? ### Distance Normally this would be less of an issue, but as there is currently a pandemic, I intend to limit myself to people based in the same country as me. It would be preferable to avoid an examination over video link, even if that was possible. I would rather meet these examiners in person. (I saw [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38315/how-far-can-one-expect-a-external-examiner-to-travel-to-be-on-defence-viva-commi), but the pandemic changes things rather) ### Anything else Clearly I cannot ask anyone I've co-authored the thesis material with (Or maybe I can, [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41295/having-a-co-author-as-an-external-examiner-for-doctoral-thesis-defense) seems to think it's sometimes possible, but that seems weird). Is there anything else that should be considered? What is the most important factor here?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know what things are like at your institution, but here, all viva's are currently over video link whether you like it or not. Your external should be close enough to your field that they will have a real appreciation of what you are doing, but they don't have to be doing exactly the same thing. Its almost certainly impossible to find someone that will understand everything in your thesis, but then thats part of the test of a good thesis - a skill examiner in an adjacent field shuold be able to understand it without being exactly their specialism. Remember that there will also be an internal examiner that can cover any knowledge gaps in the external. One reason for choosing a high prestidge examiner is that never again in your career will one person pay so much attention to your work. Its an amazing oppotunity to get close and detailed feedback on your work from an top academic. Its also an oppotunity for you make yourself known to them. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think this question is somewhat opinion-based, and different people will weight different factors differently. Some things to think about: * Personality. Is the examiner someone who will take a broad-brush view of the thesis, or go through it line by line? Are they going to focus on the science, or take issue with your punctuation choices? Some people are notorious for insisting on a large volume of relatively insignificant corrections. * Reputation. Assuming the viva goes well, your external examiner may be someone you wish to use as a referee in job/fellowship/etc applications. Clearly, there may be benefits to having a 'big name' who is willing to advocate on your behalf. * Availability. Of course, you want someone who will spend time reading and thinking about your work, and who is available to do the viva on a reasonable timescale. This may be a reason to avoid the 'biggest names'. * Subject matter. You may be able to guess (based on their past work/interests) which aspects of your thesis a potential examiner is likely to focus on. If you wish to steer the viva towards (or away from!) particular topics, you should choose the examiner accordingly. * Known quantities. In the UK system, the external examiner wields considerable power: if they want to make your life difficult, they can make it really difficult. With this in mind, it's risky to pick someone who is completely outside your/your supervisor's professional network - you have no idea how they will approach the task. If you can, talk to other recently-viva-ed PhD students in your department - who did they have, and how did they find the experience? Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
2021/08/31	406	1,872	<issue_start>username_0: As you all are familiar, most journals use manuscripts submission systems hosted on some separate domain. Why is that so, are there some other benefits except separation of the presentation layer and the editorial layer? Open source solutions such as OJS (Open Journal System) provide both of these functionalities on a single domain. Is this the case only because different parties provide software for these functionalities or there is some other reason to do so?<issue_comment>username_1: Most well known journals started online submissions before there were open source solutions available (I make no value judgement on how good the open source systems are). Now, they have decades of experience with (and data in) their own system. If it works, don't break it. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_1's answer, let me also point out that it is good practice to host data that is sensitive on separate systems. The editorial systems hold reviews, reviewer identities, editor comments, and other data that should really not become public. It needs to be guarded more cautiously than the data that sits on a public-facing web server like those used to provide access to papers. Hacking one should not give an attacker access to the other. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the existing answers: some journals (e.g. some of those those known as 'society journals', because they are connected to [learned societies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_society)) are editorially independent, but contract with some external publishing company who provides the infrastructure of manuscript handling, copy-editing and dissemination. In such circumstances the journal domain may be that of the society, whereas the submission domain belongs to whoever currently holds the publishing contract. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/31	554	2,490	<issue_start>username_0: As a student thinking about a career in research, more precisely pure or fundamental research, I would like to know more about possible careers. I haven't decided on the field yet, so I'm interested in as many fields as possible. First of all, academia seems to be the most obvious path. But I don't really like the idea that you have to have other responsibilities besides research. So the question is how much time do other responsibilities take, such as writing grants, teaching, etc., and are there no academic positions where you focus entirely on research? The next option would be industry. But the question here is: is it possible to do basic research in the industry? and if so, wouldn't this be a better option, given that it relieves you of other responsibilities and you can focus on research? (I know it depends a lot on the field) Other paths I would also like to hear about: maybe both academia and industry would be an option or research institutes and institutes for advanced studies or starting your own research company. Any other suggestions are welcome. Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: Most well known journals started online submissions before there were open source solutions available (I make no value judgement on how good the open source systems are). Now, they have decades of experience with (and data in) their own system. If it works, don't break it. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_1's answer, let me also point out that it is good practice to host data that is sensitive on separate systems. The editorial systems hold reviews, reviewer identities, editor comments, and other data that should really not become public. It needs to be guarded more cautiously than the data that sits on a public-facing web server like those used to provide access to papers. Hacking one should not give an attacker access to the other. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the existing answers: some journals (e.g. some of those those known as 'society journals', because they are connected to [learned societies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_society)) are editorially independent, but contract with some external publishing company who provides the infrastructure of manuscript handling, copy-editing and dissemination. In such circumstances the journal domain may be that of the society, whereas the submission domain belongs to whoever currently holds the publishing contract. Upvotes: 2
2021/08/31	1,516	6,686	<issue_start>username_0: I may be in the position soon of going to do a postdoc at a highly prestigious University. I am currently at a good university in the UK doing my first postdoc. I have applied for a Lecturer position at this university, but there maybe the option to do a second postdoc at more prestigious university. I am unsure how having a post doc at a prestigious university on my CV would improve my employability, applications for funding etc. What are the pros and cons of doing a second post doc at a prestigious university versus taking a Lecturer position at a good university?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, Oxford is a pretty prestigious place. It has a pretty good historical record. But what will make or break your career is what you are actually able to accomplish if you take such a position. Harvard University in the US is also pretty well known to be a good university, in some circles, anyway. But there are plenty of people who go there who turn out to have (and share) idiotic ideas. Some of them cause great damage. You can succeed or fail, but it is what you do, not where you do it, that matters. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You are in the classic position where you are looking at the differences between a lower-level position at a more prestigious university, or a higher-level position at a less prestigious university. I was once in the position of considering a choice like this, and I asked a senior professor in my field for his advice on whether a move would be considered to be up or down --- "It's a move sideways" was his reply. I think that is how many people look at this kind of thing --- the higher prestige of the institution roughly balances the lower level of the appointment. The pros and cons of these two options are too numerous to list, but a few basics stand out. You already have experience as a post-doc, so there may be diminishing marginal returns to taking another position of this kind, even at a prestigious university. Contrarily, with a tenure-track appointment as a lecturer you will have all the advantages of a higher-level position in terms of gaining experience that will develop your academic skills. Such a position would usually have a teaching component where you would probably be expected to run a full university course, so you would get some good teaching experience. As a general rule, it is a good idea to "stretch" yourself with new demands to develop new skills. Ultimately, either of these could be successful if you make the most of it, and much depends on what you are able to achieve in terms of output in either position. You may rest content in the knowledge that there is probably no wrong choice here, since either position can give you a pathway to career success. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I can remember this trade-off myself in the Australian research context. This is similar to various decisions: i.e., continue doing a post-doc or apply for lecturer positions, take a second post doc or a lecturer position. For this answer, I assume the academic model common in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand where "Lecturer" generally represents an entry-level post-PhD teaching/research position that is commonly continuing (i.e., something a bit like a tenure track position in the U.S.). Here are a few things to consider: Job Security: Getting a continuing position is a major challenge for many researchers. If you are able to get such a position, you have a guaranteed income and a way of staying in academia to achieve your research goals in the longer term. If you take the post doc, there is a risk that you may struggle at the end of your post doc to obtain such a position. But equally, if you are a real research star, this might be a smaller risk. Academic autonomy: In general, when you have a lecturing position, you are broadly free to do research in the area of your choosing (at least within your relevant discipline). In a Post Doc, this may be the case or you may have to align your research with the nature of the funding. Whether you experience this as constraining will depend on the alignment of your interests with the PostDoc. Research allocation: If you are motivated by achieving great things in research, then you will be interested in the amount of time the position permits for research. Lecturer positions are highly variable in how much time they permit for research. There are so many different models for allocating service, teaching, and other responsibilities to academics. Furthermore, once you have been allocated various non-research tasks, academics vary in the effort that they apply to such tasks and their efficiency. And this changes over time. So, when you first start teaching in general and when you start teaching new units, the time you need to put in is much greater. In summary, some Lecturer positions may permit you to have a large amount of research time, whereas others will give you almost nothing. If research is important to you, then you should learn about the likely model at the institution that you are considering. In contrast, most Post Docs are entirely or almost entirely research focussed. Mentoring and research support: You should consider the extent to which the research environment at the two institutions would support your research goals. What collaborations would the roles provide? Who would be mentoring you at the two places? One benefit to consider regarding Lecturer roles is that you may be more able to supervise research students. Location and life: Consider where you would ultimately like to live and work. If the Lecturer position opens up in a place that you'd like to set up your life, then that can be well worth taking advantage of. Money: Money varies in importance to people. Money includes both salary while doing the role and future income. It can be hard to predict but in general a Lecturer position will pay more in the short-term. These are just some of the Trade-offs. I've seen many researchers set up successful academic careers using both strategies (i.e., the prestigious-post-doc strategy and the early-take-up-ff-Lecturer-position-at-mid-tier-university strategy). Finally, there is a difference between having both offers in front of you and considering applying for one or both positions. If you are only at the stage of considering applying for positions, you essentially have neither a second Post Doc nor a Lecturer position. Depending on your confidence in getting these positions, it is often helpful to apply for more things to ensure that you will have at least one good option at the end of the process. Upvotes: 3
2021/09/01	1,780	7,190	<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student, and also trans (MtF, she/her). I've recently done some work with a research group based at the same institute as me, and this has led to me being CC'd in a few emails to various people, some of whom I don't know, and most of whom I don't know very well. There is a senior academic who I have known for several years, since long before I came out as trans. They are definitely the most well-known and senior person involved in any of these email chains (not only because of academic rank, but because they are highly respected by just about everyone in the field). They are a very lovely person who I respect greatly. Unfortunately, they have (I assume) accidentally misgendered me while referring to the work I contributed in an email that was directly addressed to a few people I have never met (although I do know of them). CC'd are a number of people who do know me. My question is essentially: what is the best way (if any) to address and correct the misstep? Since my pronouns are in my email signature, I had initially tried to find anything I could send in the (now growing) email chain in order to make it clear to everyone what my actual pronouns are. However, I don't think there is anything I can contribute meaningfully, and I'm only CC'd in the emails to keep me up to date with the status of the larger project. I also don't think it's an egregious mistake done in bad faith. Like I said, I have immense respect for this senior academic, and I have not at all perceived any change in their attitude towards me since I came out. So I believe it truly is an honest mistake that happens from time to time, so if I don't have any way to casually correct it I think I'll just leave it. I'll also point out that if this had happened during a meeting or conversation, I would have immediately corrected it. The problem here is that it's in an email chain I don't really have any other reason to intervene into, so it feels unnecessary to send an email and add to the length of the chain with no more than a correction to something I don't think was done intentionally.<issue_comment>username_1: Would it be possible to send an introductory email, as you don't know some of these people yet? Something along the lines of: > > Dear project participants, I was brought into the project by X because I have worked on subject Y. If you have any questions about my work, please feel free to contact me. Looking forward to working with you, > > > > > Kind regards OP (she/her) > > > This will not be the most content-rich email ever, but it serves a purpose (clarifying your gender). Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This sounds horrible. Sorry this has happened to you. The best solution would probably be an email from the academic who misgendered you. How well do you know this person? Would you feel comfortable contacting them, very gently pointing out their mistake, and asking them if they would send a correction to the list? As I say, this is probably very depedent on the nature of your relationship with the senior academic. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: First, I think it may be useful to note that in academic collaborations where folks haven't met in person, misgendering often happens even to people who are not trans, due to ambiguity and cultural differences (e.g., "Jean", "Kinjal", "<NAME>"). As such, you don't even need to bring up your trans status if you don't want to: this can be about your identity right now, and not the history of how you figured that out. I think that you don't need to dance around the subject or find an excuse for an email. If it's important to you to be correctly gendered, then you can simply say that. The question then is whether you feel that it is important for the correction to go to the folks who don't know you on the cc list, or if you are more focused on just reminding your senior colleague. If you mostly want to just remind your senior colleague, you can send them a private note like: > > Hi, [NAME]: > > > In your recent email to [GROUP], I saw that you accidentally used the wrong pronoun to refer to me, and I wanted to remind you that my pronouns are she/her. Apologies for needing to bring this up, and I'm sure that it was unintentional, but it's something that's important to me. > > > Polite, non-threatening, and to the point. It also (unfortunately likely necessarily) does some of the emotional work for the interaction. If it's important to you to have the full group see the correction, you can do something similar for the full cc list: > > Hi, folks: > > > Apologies for adding to the email traffic, but I saw that the wrong pronouns were accidentally used to refer to me recently: my pronouns are actually she/her. Again, apologies for needing to bring this up, and I'm sure that it was unintentional, but it's something that's important to me. > > > In both cases, by making it clear that you presume good intent and simply and straightforwardly asking for a correction, then if the folks you're dealing with are indeed well-intentioned, they'll likely just make the the adjustment and move on. Most people do not want to be the person who starts unnecessary drama in a group, and so if you make it a simple low-drama interaction, they're not likely to make it into a big deal either. Just leaving it for your signature to correct the next time that you email, on the other hand, is more of a passive-aggressive maneuver that's likely to be ineffective and leave you more upset. Don't be surprised, however, if mistakes do continue to happen, especially from your older colleague, just because the wrong thing got stuck in somebody's head. For example (though not about gender) I have had a couple of colleagues who for years and years used the name "Jack" to refer to me rather than "Jake" because due to something linguistic or cultural my actual name just cannot stick in their heads. Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Since you don't think that there is anything malicious going on, let me suggest that one of the best ways to educate someone who knew you as male is to go visit them - any excuse will do. If they knew you "in person" in a previous life then that picture sticks in their head. Old habits can die hard, especially in older people or people with a lot (research) on their minds. But if you have the opportunity to visit with them in person, then they will naturally form a different picture. I think this could be more effective than any email reminder if the option is open to you. The other answers suggesting email reminders are fine. Another possibility, if a meeting can't be employed, is to have another person, someone with some authority (another professor, say), send an email (or a visit) to the person bringing them up to date. Professors can "chat" about things all the time without anyone feeling embarrassed. If you take this route, use someone you trust. --- Note that gender isn't binary and a change isn't instantaneous, neither for the person who undergoes a change, nor for the people who know them. It is a process, even for parents. Upvotes: 4
2021/09/01	2,251	9,776	<issue_start>username_0: Does it hurt the professor's career in any way if their students drop out? Assume a PhD student gets the professor's funding and publishes an adequate amount of papers. They then decide to quit (maybe with a master's). What benefit is it to the professor for the student to continue working? Professors seem to be concerned about taking students who might not survive the entire program, but I don't see what the problem is. For reference, I am particularly interested in the USA within CS.<issue_comment>username_1: That would depend on the reasons that students drop out. Some will do so for health and family reasons. Some leave because they have decided to follow a different path. None of that reflects on the advisor. But if students (plural) drop out alleging abuse by the advisor, personal or professional, then it certainly should reflect badly, though some get away with bad behavior for a long time. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the answer is yes, it will hurt a bit. This is mostly because it is good for a professor to have a record of graduating a high proportion of graduate students they take on, and anyone who leaves without their degree reduces this proportion to some extent. It is true that the reasons for the student leaving matter, particularly in terms of the evaluation of the professor by their existing department. However, if a professor applies for an external role, one of the things they are going to do is to give information on their experience supervising graduate students, and the proportion of students who make it to successful completion is going to be a rough proxy measure for outside universities to evaluate their success. In an academic job application, it is much better to be able to say "95%+ of my graduate research students have successfully completed their programs" than to only be able to say "20% of my graduate research students have successfully completed their programs, but here are the reasons this wasn't my fault". In regard to this issue, you should bear in mind that successful graduation of graduate research students is one metric that universities use to evaluate the success of their higher-degree programs. In some countries (e.g., Australia) it is also a metric that directly affects government funding of the university, and so the university has a financial reason to care about this. Since it is important to the universities, there is always some pressure on professors to do a good job in this regard, and a student drop-out will usually have some negative effect even if it occurs for reasons beyond the professor's control. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the existing answers: inevitably, PhD students tend to require more input from their supervisor in the first half of their programme, and then gradually become increasingly independent towards the end. Conversely, outputs and impact tend to be low in the first half of a programme, and increase towards the end. A student who leaves half-way through may therefore have consumed considerable amounts of the supervisor's intellectual resources (time, energy, ideas) but not yet delivered the anticipated payoffs (papers, impact). This is undoubtedly a negative from the supervisor's perspective. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: EDIT: I am in the UK, and therefore my answer is relevant to there. Things may be different in the US, although I'll note that others have stated that student graduation rate is a performance metric there as well I am a bit hesitant to answer this because I guess the answer might put people off making a decision that is the correct decision for them, but honesty is always best, so the answer is yes, it can hurt a supervisor for their students to leave. Where I am, the % of students who submit a thesis within time limit is a key metric on which an academic is judged. One reason for this is that government funding for PhD programs requires that submissions within time limit are above a certain threshold. This is also the reason that many universities will not initially register a student for a PhD, but will require the students to undergo a confirmation review after a year - if the student is dismissed at this point, it doesn't count against the department, but after this it does. An academic will probably not suffer too much from a single student not completing in time (although yes, they will lose the right to say "my graduation rate is perfect" on a promotion case or job application). More than one and questions will definitely be asked, and that PI might start to find it more and more difficult to win the right to recruit students. However, none of this should affect a student's decision as to whether continuing a PhD is right for them or not, and the damage done to a student staying in a programme when it is not right for them massively out-weighs the damage done to the supervisor if they leave. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: I'd like to add to the main point in [Ben's](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/175092/4249) and [username_4's](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/175099/4249): yes, for the reasons they both discuss, it can hurt an academic, and especially an academic at the start of their career. It takes a while for a new academic to be able to say "I have supervised a PhD student to completion" -- a year or more to obtain funding, several months to hire a good candidate, and then 3-5 years (depending on the country; I know you asked about the US but most of my experience is in Europe and the UK) until completion. And while I'm not sure this is a formal requirement for a promotion/career advancement in the US, certainly some European systems will explicitly require that an academic has supervised a number of PhD students to completion, so I would assume it is an important factor in the US. Early career researchers (and in general, academics in more postdoc-oriented systems such as the UK) will rarely have PhD students "lined up" one after the other. So if the first or second PhD student of a supervisor drops out of the programme, it might add a couple of years before the academic will be able to claim they supervised a PhD student to completion (which is often needed for career advancement, as well as grants certain advisory/supervisory independence to the academic). Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It should but it doesn't. High drop-out rates, high past the time limit (normally 3 years in UK/IRL) and not infrequent way-past-time-limit (a PhD put in 5 - 11 years after commencement) seem to have no effect on research council, university or private grant absorption. This is provided the HoD and/or PI are "connected" and shameless enough to maintain a healthy application rate, "timely" (i.e. inside knowledge from colleagues on national or EURAM research boards) applications plus a certain skill at phrasing technological concepts in colloquial language and flattering presentation hosts. Of course, there are practical and financial reasons to avoid a student who is felt to be unsure in character if not in commitment: additional RA support enlisted to help in that side of the work remain on the university payroll, allocation of expensive instrument time and/or consumable materials plus disappointment at failing industry supporters are all good reasons in themselves for supervisor diffidence. Supervisors don't want wasted effort investment of their own in not fully committed PhDs, as well as a human desire to avoid any association with failure. When a death of a PhD or particularly a fellow occurs, it's a scramble around the research group to find someone capable and willing to finish off the project committed to. No doubt it puts the PI under a compliment to that fellow/staff-member also. If you are gauging your professor's caution towards taking on any applicant by attitudes, airs and gestures, please also make allowance for some academics capacity to dramatize. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: A student dropping out or the professor categorically failing that student will absolutely not hurt the professor, as there is no mechanism for that to happen. Of course, this will give the department something to spread rumors about, but there are no consequences. There are no written policies to punish professors for not ensuring success. There is only one universal truth: funding. A PhD student dropping from a program will not have any affect whatsoever on that professor's ability to gain funding, and as a result, there are absolutely no negative consequences. That professor is infinitely more valuable and visible to that department than is the student. The 'last man standing' is the professor, and the student will get flushed down the drain. The professor can then say or do anything to justify why that student wasnt able to perform. God forbid they take any responsibility, because that would inevitably involve a failure on behalf of the entire department. That is not realistic. The student is at fault. period. Success is rewarded. Failure is externalized. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: If a student drops out (or is forced to leave!), and the student's work is in such shape that there is no recovering it for publication, and the next student cannot simply pick up where that student left off, than the mentor has sunk time into wasted effort. This is true regardless of the reason the student left. You do this too often, and it will hinder a career. If students periodically end up leaving a mentors group, then that mentor may develop a reputation for not being able to get his students through their research programs, and that will not help in future recruitment efforts. Upvotes: 2
2021/09/02	2,112	8,895	<issue_start>username_0: I feel like I wouldn't want to work with >70 years old professors because they're too old and have less chance of coming up with new ideas. is this a reasonable concern?<issue_comment>username_1: So long as an academic is not suffering from cognitive decline in old age (and I speak here of serious cognitive decline; e.g., dementia, alzheimers, etc.), I wouldn't think there is any reason why they would lack ideas for research. In fact, you would probably find that the opposite is the case --- by the time they are at the end of their career they have probably stocked up so many research ideas over the years that they have more paper ideas than they could possibly complete, giving their students plenty of possible topics they could take on as papers. I speak here as someone in my early forties, and I already find that the rate at which new ideas come to me is faster than the rate at which I can turn them into publishable papers. Consequently, I already have many many half-written papers and jotted down ideas, and I'm not confident I'll ever finish all of the ideas I've started. It is possible that there might be some drawbacks to having an elderly professor as a supervisor, but I wouldn't think this would be one of them. An older professor will also have some advantages in terms of breadth of knowledge and experience, and I can certainly think of a number of professors in my own field who are now in their seventies who are absolute giants in the field; any research students would be lucky to have them as supervisors. Finally, you should also bear in mind that research supervision usually involves a "panel" of multiple supervisors, and while one is usually the primary supervisor, there is also support from others. It is not unusual to have a mix of supervisors with different levels of age and experience (and academic level) and this will usually help ameliorate any disadvantages of younger or older advisors. If an academic is in their seventies (or whatever advanced age is "too old") and feels that they can no longer do a good job supervising a research student, most likely they will just self-select out of the supervisory pool and only take on a supporting role on the panel, if that. Others will self-select out of supervision roles completely because they are close to retirement and they don't want to take on a multi-year commitment of seeing a research student through grad-school; they have earned the rest after all. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: No. It is a bad idea to make assumptions about a person’s productivity and level of creativity, in the context of academic research, based on their age. This seems to me like an example of using the “fast” (aka System 1), heuristic-based type of thinking described in Kahneman’s book [Thinking, Fast and Slow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow), to form judgments, instead of the more deliberative, slow, “System 2” mode of thinking. Kahneman describes many examples of this type of fallacious reasoning and the ways in which it can lead us astray in decision-making situations. Each professor is an individual. Some make better advisors than others, but you’d have to estimate how good they are based on actual details about their personality, recent and less recent track record of success in research and in mentoring, and other relevant factors. Age can only be relevant insofar as it relates to someone’s physical health or an imminent retirement. Many academics in their 70s still produce excellent research and successful PhD students. Don’t make assumptions, and don’t use heuristics in making important decisions like choosing a PhD advisor. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm quite a lot closer to 80 than to 70, but if you made a proposal to me that was in my lane, or accepted a suggestion that I made for a research project, I'd serve you pretty well. I have a lot of experience and with that, a lot of ideas. However, I'm retired, so that would be a potential obstacle and we would need to get the university to make a decision. But even if I were not quite yet retired, that would be an issue. I also enjoy the fact that I currently have very little professional responsibility and can pretty much do as I please. Some of those things are actually fairly "academic" though. I'd be useless to you outside my lane, of course, but that was probably always true, though I was able to give some guidance to people with quite different research directions. Not as advisor, but as a committee member. Some of us old folk still have a functioning brain. Some of us still have an interest in field, even if we don't publish, ourselves, anymore. But it is an individual thing, and not one to make generalizations about. It might be worse to have an advisor who was so young and active that they had no time to give you when you need it. Every case is different. There are a lot of things that go in to making a good advisor. One of them is the attitude that you are an important person and that they will do what they can to extend your education and advance your career. That probably isn't age related, but it might be. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I can't comment if a professor that is older in age is necessarily less capable to be productive from a physical/psychological perspective, but an issue to consider are the regulations regarding mandatory pension after a specific age. Depending on the country of the professor, they may be forced to leave academia after a specific age (in my country it is 67). Having your advisor leave academia for a pension in the near future may be detrimental to your future carrier for many reasons: * If they leave before you have completed your PhD, you will need to change advisors, which may or may not delay your diploma. * People that are going to exit imminently are likely to not be as motivated as someone who has potential for future promotion. * If they are in pension after you have completed your degree, and you are looking for a new job or a promotion in academia, they won't be able to participate in any department meetings that would create a position for you, or in electoral committees to actually have you elected/promoted, so you are likely to have fewer allies in these key roles. A younger person will be able to help you for many years after you complete your degree, if you maintain a good relationship. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I for one can understand your concern. BUT it also depends on your field, no? In computer science I would trust an 80 year old professor who hasnt been working in the industry for 40 years less, than a professor who is 50 and still had some experience with rather modern technologies. On the other Hand I believe a 80 year old professor of biology, psychology or medicine to be just as fit as the 50 year old professor. That is because usually professors still work in that field. In the end it always depends on the person honestly. Had professors talking about how great they were in the 70s and are completely disconnected from the modern breakthroughs in that field, but had also professors in their 50s telling about how they worked in a really really big company just recently and worked with all new advancements but were just bad at teaching and I felt like they didnt even understand the new advancements. Also had really great and up-to-date professors that were about to retire and it actually was sad when they retired as I would have loved to learn more from them. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Actually there might be significant advantages to working with an older professor. Consider that an older professor is more likely to be well-known and respected in the field. Reputation is a very important currency in academia. Your advisor's reputation could open doors for you. E.g. * You want a job after you graduate? A letter of recommendation from a very well-known professor will carry much more weight than a letter from a new professor that no one has ever heard of. * You need access to some specialized equipment? A well-know professor probably has friends at other universities or national labs that would let you borrow it. * You need funding to complete some portion of your research? An older professor probably has many contacts at various funding agencies from over the years. A few phone calls might get your research funded. A new professor just getting started won't have as many contacts. * You want to get your work published in a top tier conference or journal? An experienced professor knows what it takes to make that happen, whereas a younger one may not. As the other answers point out, this will be dependent on the individual. Just because a professor is old, doesn't necessary mean they are well-known. Evaluate each specific potential advisor. Upvotes: 1
2021/09/02	1,133	4,589	<issue_start>username_0: At many European universities (I don't know how it is in other countries), you still have to write a proper PhD thesis, while others allow for writing a summary and attach three published articles. For the former case, it is still best to publish the research before submitting the thesis, and to reference the published work within the thesis accordingly. The question is: Is it possible to make it the other way around? That is to publish the research with the thesis and later submit a proper article to a journal? The journal might reject it, because the research is already published and publicly available, albeit not peer reviewed in a journal. It could thus be comparable to a preprint, which most journals accept. Edit: I work in theoretical chemistry Edit 2: There is already a similar question ([Can I publish parts of the Ph.D thesis as a paper in a journal?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2937/can-i-publish-parts-of-the-ph-d-thesis-as-a-paper-in-a-journal)), which is however about publishing the thesis as a proper book instead of just making it available online in line with the universities requirements. Edit 3: Another question ([Paper was rejected for high similarity with parts of my own dissertation](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151308/paper-was-rejected-for-high-similarity-with-parts-of-my-own-dissertation)) is also close, but it is about steps to take, if the article was already rejected due to the previous publication within a thesis. It proves, that this question is indeed valid and there are some journals, which might object pre-publication in a thesis. I identified three other related questions: [Publicly available extended summary of PhD thesis and manuscript submission](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49365/publicly-available-extended-summary-of-phd-thesis-and-manuscript-submission?rq=1), [Chapter in printed thesis vs. journal article](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/71135/chapter-in-printed-thesis-vs-journal-article?rq=1), [Paper from my already published PhD thesis -- How do I cite it?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49284/paper-from-my-already-published-phd-thesis-how-do-i-cite-it?rq=1)<issue_comment>username_1: As an example: Nature Communications has the following paragraph in their [editorial policies on duplicate publication](https://www.nature.com/ncomms/editorial-policies/plagiarism#policy-on-duplicate-publication) > > Nature Portfolio will consider submissions containing material that > has previously formed part of a PhD or other academic thesis which has > been published according to the requirements of the institution > awarding the qualification. > > > Edit: There are similar paragraphs in most journal policies. Yet, one probably has to rephrase the text in order to publish the results ([Paper was rejected for high similarity with parts of my own dissertation](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151308/paper-was-rejected-for-high-similarity-with-parts-of-my-own-dissertation)) Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Usually there is no issue with publishing material in a journal article if it has been already included in a PhD thesis since a thesis isn't usually considered a "prior publication" for these purposes (and most publishers realize there will be overlap between published articles and thesis). If you are still uncertain, then the best course of action is to email the editor of the journal you want to submit to and get their opinion. They may also want you to cite the thesis in the paper if it is available already (e.g. if it is posted before you submit the initial version they could request a small footnote stating that). You may run into issues with figures and tables though (and large chunks of text if you want to just copy verbatim from the thesis), depending on the copyright status of your thesis. Unless you publish in a journal that allows you to keep copyright of the article, you will generally need to assign the copyright to them. If your thesis copyright license is such that you can't do that, then you couldn't use the exact figures/tables from the thesis in the papers. In most cases, I think the copyright that most universities want you to apply would permit this - but you can always check with your graduate school/thesis administrator/library about it. This would be another case where if you are uncertain you should approach the editors with the question and they can tell you the publisher's policies. Upvotes: 2
2021/09/02	1,358	5,602	<issue_start>username_0: I was asked to review for an MDPI journal and realized while requesting to extend the deadline for my review that the editor at MDPI intended to send review requests to several reviewers, to gather enough reviews to make a decision on the basis of the first 2-3 he received. This means that the journal might have requested a review that they would not have needed. I am wondering if this is how MDPI normally conducts reviews as it would be disrespectful of the work of reviewers. It appears that others might have had similar experiences (see [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20210902143302/https://www.researchgate.net/post/Im_gonna_ask_whether_publishing_in_MDPI_journals_is_good_or_more_specifically_how_is_publishing_in_International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences/5bee6fb00f95f19b446b8412/citation/download) and [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20210902143713/https://www.researchgate.net/post/Im_gonna_ask_whether_publishing_in_MDPI_journals_is_good_or_more_specifically_how_is_publishing_in_International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences/5bfbdf27a5a2e29e525f4ec3/citation/download)). Can you tell me if you had similar experiences so that we can better understand how MDPI normally conducts its reviews, and if it is respectful of the work of reviewers?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't find anything unethical in the practice as long as no deception occurs. If it is a policy of the journal or otherwise communicated to reviewers then they have no obligation to opt-in to the review, or even to working with the journal in question. I doubt that any reviewer has a guarantee that their view of a paper will have any particular influence on an editor. An editor needs evidence about the quality of a paper and reviewers supply their views. But those views can be ignored, and often are when reviewers differ. You might be upset if an editor seems to waste your time and effort by not taking your view into account, but there is no contract to do so. Long term, it might not be in a journal's best interest to send out more requests than needed, especially when it angers reviewers, but that isn't an ethical issue. They are trying to avoid the problem of late reviews delaying publication of good papers. But if you feel your time and effort is being wasted, don't participate. --- I've answered only the topline question as applied to ignoring reviews and make no statement about whether the publisher is ethical in general or not. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I had my own experiences with MDPI both as a reviewer an as a special issue editor. I'd say they don't do anything I'd call "unethical", but they definitely follow a kind of business-like approach to the whole process, trying to observe the rulebook and the deadlines. As a reviewer, you get an invitation along with other reviewers. If you respond too late, the link simply expires. I am not sure what happens if several people respond quickly, but probably it rarely happens in practice: it often takes longer than planned to get enough reviewers, and if there is no response within a reasonable time, another candidate will be invited. As an editor, you can leave the work to inviting reviwers to the MDPI staff or do it yourself. In either case, they notify you when all the promised reviews are received (or the deadline has passed), and you can see them all in the editor interface. So I really doubt that any review that was actually written won't be shown there. I'd say that MDPI has an extensive ever-growing list of "special issues", which are edited by guest editors (like me). It's an editor's job to decide what to do upon receiving reviews, so the authors' experience depend a lot on editor's attitude. For example, seeing a poorly written review, an editor might ask for another review or simply look at the final verdict (accept / reject) without much attention to review content. From a purely user interface perspective, the editor doesn't really have any incentive to prefer some reviews and ignore others. There is a box with a short summary of all reviews (like "Reviewer 1: acccept; Reviewer 2: major revision; Reviewer 3: reject"), so I doubt any reviews are lost at this stage. Naturally, if the deadline has passed and we only have two reviews out of three requested, the editor might decide to make a decision without waiting the for the third review (especially if two people have already proposed rejection, there is little merit in delaying the decision), or to invite another reviewer rather than waiting for a reply. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In the comments, you give an important clarification: You asked for a deadline extension before agreeing to review the paper. Hence, in this case, there are no fairness- or ethics-related implications, because you did not spend any actual work on reviewing the paper. It's fair for a journal to invite more reviewers than they need, because rejections to such invitations are very common. If they get more positive responses than expected, they can just dis-invite the unneeded reviewers without doing any damage (unnecessary work done). The same happened to me recently upon a review invitation from a top journal in my area. A related, but different case would be if they actually had more reviewers review the paper than needed, and moved on to a decision before all reviews are in and before the agreed deadline has passed. This would indeed be disrespectful of the reviewers' work and could be seen as somewhat unethical. But I don't see any evidence that MDPI does this. Upvotes: 0
2021/09/02	1,019	4,322	<issue_start>username_0: I was interviewed for an academic job where I pretty much answered all the questions and the interviewer seemed positive. He even shared his contacts for further questions and said there would be more rounds of interview if everything goes well. However, at the end he said to me "All the best for your future endeavours". I am still trying to figure out what this means? Any comments in general or if someone faced a similar situation, would be nice.<issue_comment>username_1: It doesn't mean anything, it's just a pleasant remark. When you are accepted or rejected for the job, you will be notified formally, not by vague remarks at the end of an interview. In the meantime, keep applying and interviewing for other opportunities that interest you. Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would interpret it only as "we haven't yet made a decision" or "it isn't in my power to make a decision" but that, indeed, the interviewer wishes you well however it turns out. Don't interpret it as a negative. I think the response would be rather different if you weren't in the running, at least. These are normally department level decisions, with a committee making recommendations to the chair or dean. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: "All the best" would apply regardless of whether you got the job or not. Remember that hiring isn't necessarily done just by the interviewer, but there is an additional committee with more people behind the scenes that helps decide whether you get the job or not. It's just common courtesy at the end of an interview to say things like "thank you so much for taking the time", "great getting to speak with you" (for both the interviewer and interviewee). If you were able to answer the questions and strike a good tone with the interviewer, there isn't much more you could have done in my mind. Remember that hiring, in any case, tends to be random and sometimes involves luck. You could do everything right before, during, and after the interview and still not get the job just because they felt someone was a better fit. Don't take it personally, and just move on; who knows, maybe you may run into them in the future. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: What others have said about it being a routine parting wish or even a non-committal close to an otherwise promising dialogue is possible. But whenever someone wished me well in the future at the end of an interview, it never happened that I was offered the job. It was often accompanied by a warm smile (always the only smile during the whole process) and hearty handshake too which always aroused my suspicion that the interview had become a tedious pro forma exercise after initial impressions were taken or bad ones confirmed - and the interviewer was relieved to see the back of me. In your case of it being an academic job, your interviewer was most likely a senior academic rather than from HR -- the latter being notoriously non-committal with everything they say at interviews ! - so I'd keep going on the job-hunt if I were you: you're unlikely to be more than a fallback for this one. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Sounds to me like that interviewer is not likely the person who ultimately makes the hiring decision, but rather only has input into it. They might have thought you did well and were implying that they hope you're seen favorably by the hiring authorities above them. If they were implying that you didn't get the job, that would be a bit like turning down a date by telling the person that they have a great personality. A bit too soon, harsh, and obvious in intent. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: I have conducted lots of interviews in my time. I was usually the sole decider, and my mind was usually made up by the end of the interview (barring blockers in any still-to-be-done background checks, of course). My policy was to be transparent about my inclination to hire or not to the candidate (it is possible that an interviewer may get more respect if the interviewer by being austere and standoffish - showing that you are keen can be interpreted as a sign of weakness - but whatever, I always liked to be straight with people). So coming from me the parting remark would have been a definite goodbye forever. Upvotes: 3
2021/09/02	2,768	11,709	<issue_start>username_0: Edit #1: Thank you all for the comments. After sorting out some messes in my recent life and thinking things through. I do realize quitting isn't just a "magic bullet" to make world perfect. Still, it is good to read all of your posts and the solutions you guys offer! TL;DR: New starting Ph.D student in my very first year who has lost faith in my current university & my supervisor. Seriously considering quitting but don't know what to do. Background I'm 25 and have just graduated with a Master degree in computer science(computer vision, robotics specifically). My publication record is on track with 3 papers on A-tier conferences. I have good internship experience in the summer. Other than that, I have always had a great interest in research, machine learning in general, and I have been hardworking, from other's perspectives. I have a GPA 3.9 out of 4.0 for my master, and have been offered full financial support from my PhD program. Current Academic Situation w/ My Supervisor When I first applied to PhD programs, I applied to only two schools (my current university with my current supervisor & another good univ, both top 100) and ended up in the same university (I have also done my BS.c at the same university). While my current supervisor is a nice person & easy to talk to, I always feelextremely neglected & unsupervised the first thing. Most of the time, I only met up with my supervisor to seek research advice once per month or two only(I usually have to email him to ask beforehand so that he can coordinate a time, and sometimes he forgot still). However, for some engineering students, he will meet up way more often. Secondly, every time I talked to my supervisor, I feel he's no longer interested in catching up to state-of-the-art compsci methods & prefer to work on more ECE-oriented projects on joint stick design or other things. This is also obvious, since all new students he recruited are from ece or mece & he's spending more time discussing with them. Another thing to denote here is that, although I'm working on computer vision research, there's no GPUs in our lab, and every time me or my fellow PhD student proposed for one he will sideline the entire conversation. This causes severe issue for me and my fellow PhD seniors, since we do not have the computational resource to demo any advanced Reinforcement Learning or Computer Vision methods on our lab robot, and we ended up settle with old GPU using our own money & have to make compromises in our methods(which renders our results weaker). However, he has no problem buying a 150, 000 fancy robot arm for the mece students he recruited. Thirdly, after 4 years of observing my supervisor, I can fairly confirm that he rarely communicates with other professors in other universities (weak academic networking). I have talked to my seniors about this and they pretty much confirm this. Basically, I feel I'm losing faith in my supervisor's capability in guiding me with a strong compsci resume for my PhD. While I totally agree that PhD students should be totally capable of conducting his own research, it doesn't make me feel less tiring and stressed over the fact that, I have to compete against top labs & univs for SOTA, and without constant feedbacks from my supervisor I sometimes feel very stressed and lost. The other problem is the academic networking, since my supervisor rarely networks himself, it has made it extremely difficult for me to get in contact with other leading researchers / experts. Another thing is the lack of investment in basic equipment (GPUs), where I sometimes felt my supervisor just didn't care. Other Background Financially I do not struggle for anything either, and I'm more than happy to pursue my PhD career, since I do love working research. I come from a family of academics. My father is a professor in MECE with strong academic records & international connections (this is why I feel I'm struggling with my supervisor, since I have had a lot of experience with various researchers from my father's connections, and I feel my supervisor isn't catching up in years). My parents are well-aware of my supervisor and his lab situations(since I talk to them on a regular basis), and they always told me that it's OK and normal, as long as you work hard yourself. I have talked to my post-doc senior, and my other PhD seniors (one of them has very strong publication at places like CVPR), they are all struggling for their own academic career compared to people coming from other top univs, or simply because the other people are more social with each other. I just feel my future is somehow hopeless even if I get a strong publication track and other thing (and that is a big if). What would I do? In summary, I am staying at the university where I graduate from my bachelor's degree. My supervisor has been making some peculiar choices & all my seniors have issues with their own academic tracks throughout the year. I feel my future is hopeless if I am to graduate from my PhD with what I have now. I want to quit my current university, and apply to a better place. I don't know if that's naïve since people get skeptical when you quit your PhD. I honestly have no idea what to do. If I am to quit my current PhD, I'd need to apply for a work permit & look for a job since I'm not a Canadian citizen. I just feel clueless and feel something is missing from my PhD & am no longer satisfied of the situation I have to work with during my master. I'd love advice from anyone.<issue_comment>username_1: Same here, a first-year Ph.D. student in computer vision. I totally understand the anxiety when lacking GPUs, but I would recommend you to talk to your supervisor first and let him know all of your concerns. If it still doesn't work out, you may like to tell him that you would apply for a new position and see if you can stay in the same lab until you make it, and of course, you have to keep working for him. This is what two of my friends did. Both of them got to better places. One of them has graduated with great tracks. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: > > I want to quit my current university, and apply to a better place. > > > Don't make a hasty decision after one week. First I'd suggest you figure out what your options are 1. Are there any other professors at your current university that are doing work that interest you? Preferably same department, but you could even look at other departments. Changing advisors with the same university will be much easier than changing universities. Don't necessarily contact any of them yet, just determine if this is an option or not. 2. If you did change schools, what other school would you go to? Make a list of the three or four schools you would like to go to. Now those schools will have application deadlines. Figure out what those application deadlines are. I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US the application deadlines would probably be sometime in December. Let's assume that it is December 1 for talking purposes. Hopefully the fact that you know you have some options and that you know you have some time until you have to make the decision on those options will give you some mental "breathing room". Now, backup a few weeks from that application deadline. Let's call it November 1st. Try your absolute hardest to make things work with your current advisor until then. Talk to him if you can, and express your concerns. Don't tell you that you are thinking about quitting necessarily, but just talk about what you'd like to see changed. Many other questions on this site might help with the discussion. If you get to Nov 1, and it still doesn't work, then start talking to other professors in your department and see if you can change. And if that doesn't work, then start writing those applications to other schools. Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Speaking from personal experience... This could prove to be quite a journey. Good part is that without close supervision you can do things you are actually interested in instead of slaving away doing some possibly dead end research for a few years. Bad part, obviously, is that you are on your own. Now, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is field-dependent and, more importantly, that is where your personal quirks kick in. Your parents are somewhat right about "just working hard will get you there", but social expectations have also changed since they were starting their careers. Personally, I do not regret going that path but not having resources and not knowing how to obtain them has proven to be a major obstacle setting me back a few years. To me, that is less important than creative freedom I have enjoyed in the process, but might not be the case for you if you want to approach it in a more "mainstream" way, with tenure track firm in sights and all that. To that end, I would offer a quick summary checklist for your expectations. * Are you prepared to be the main AND corresponding author for your articles? I.e. instead of advisor doing the bulk of the work preparing your results for publishing and handling the process they would only intervene as you encounter difficulties? * When do you plan to learn navigating grant funding and observing your research institution relevant formalities? Say, lab equipment does not come out of thin air: do you expect your advisor to sort it out and let you focus on the topic entirely? Would you rather learn how it works from lab head's perspective? * Do you actually have a team (yourself included) capable of doing the work you want to do? Top-100 uni is not telling much if its strengths lie elsewhere and the relevant lab is fresh established and lacking support? You are at crossroads right now. Huge opportunities, huge risks. But no guts, no glory, right? Two big points though, irrelevant of your ultimate decision - no networking is beyond terrible in academy. I could not possibly stress it enough. If the supervisor does not do that, you would have to. Second, not having support, even if it is stupidest things like affirming what you are doing is okay (in my case, relevant to publishing) could prove crippling to your academic performance. Yes, your supervisor is the person who is supposed to help with that and yes, ideally that happens by the virtue of you both working on the closely related topics or even on the same one. Unfortunately, far from all supervisors are great and approachable, and sometimes you might feel less intimidated approaching your fellow senior students. TL;DR: What are you getting out of this program? If you got hardly any involvement from anyone (primarily, your supervisor) and no perks of being a PI in your own chosen topic (ability to secure funds for the lab, assign some work to people)... Well, yes, this arrangement is not really helping you in any significant way. Quitting is very much on the table, but it sounds like you do not know that well how things operate around you, relying on second-hand information from senior students and having hardly any networking. Sure, this is a hard situation to find yourself in, but just applying to another program does not mean all listed issues would instantly evaporate. You do things you were assigned to do fairly well, but this is not enough for an academic career. I would say that stress from dealing with everything is probably too much, but do not expect to find a perfect lab ticking all the boxes, or even the ones you prefer ticked the most, just have at least something to help you in your career. Also, best of luck! Upvotes: 2
2021/09/02	4,013	17,519	<issue_start>username_0: I am an instructor at a community college in California. On occasion, a student with a documented learning disability will sign up for one of my courses. I do my best to provide them the additional care required with the aim of providing an equivalent learning experience. This often results in many extra hours of work beyond my contract. I don't mind, as I can usually find time to do it fairly well so that I feel right about it. I typically have just a few of these deserving students every semester which makes volunteer time manageable. I have an amazing coworker that has an abundantly caring persona in addition to being a hard worker. She has been great with disabled students over the years, and has garnered a reputation with students, counselors and others as being the "go to" instructor for learning disabled students. In any typical semester, she could have 10 to 20 learning disabled students choosing her class over other instructors' classes. This has made her workload impossible to do well over the years and decreased the workloads of others. As this point, the amount of work required to be effective for her students is way beyond her contracted hours she gets paid for and not reasonable. She is doing everything she can do, but her workload has become literally untenable and is now causing serious health issues. Unfortunately, her caring generosity is well known with counselors and online through sites like [www.ratemyprofessors.com](http://www.ratemyprofessors.com). The counselors have been asked not to push students specifically into classes based who teaches it, however, the problem persists. She is taking the lion's share of work while other instructors' workloads have lessened. Consequently, her health issues have worsened. The instructor is not interested in extra pay. She has already repeatedly asked the college for additional support to no avail. As a last resort, I would like to know if there is any policy or law on the books at the state or federal level that limits the number of documented learning disabled students an instructor is required to take on. Surely, there has to be an upper bound. Case in point, I would think it would obviously be unreasonable and impossible to manage a workload like mine if all students in all of my classes were learning disabled. I would not be able to do my job effectively as there are not enough hours in the day to do all that is required for these deserving students. The goal here is to find an immediate solution that will reduce the extreme number of hours of extra (off contract) work that my coworker is taking on so that she can can get healthy again and also provide our disabled students fair access to a quality education, which they are not getting as she is overworked. Is there any law that limits the number of disabled students that any instructor must take on in a given semester? If not, do you have any ideas for other solutions?<issue_comment>username_1: Statistically speaking, female faculty do more of certain tasks than male faculty. This might be an example of that, in which case gender discrimination laws might be of use to your colleague. Unfortunately, there is no guaranteed way to fix this problem because students with learning disabilities will inevitably be undercounted. I'd suggest that your colleague should seek a new job. It might also be possible to avoid telling students who is teaching this colleague's courses until the day classes start. This may be difficult to organize and of little use if your students are prone to late registration. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: As to the specific question at the end of the post: "Is there any law that limits the number of disabled students that any instructor must take on in a given semester?" The answer to this is almost certainly "no" because I cannot see how anyone would legally define terms such "disabled student", "take on", etc. There is no reasonable way to say that someone cannot teach 1000 disabled students in general -- for example, I see no particular reason why teaching 1000 students with physical disabilities some mathematics cannot be done. The question you are really asking is not actually one related to "taking on" special needs students, or about any specific number. The question you are asking is about an instructor having a work load related to the teaching they do that is above and beyond what an employer can expect from an employee. The situation is really no different than a McDonalds branch asking an employee to grill 100,000 hamburgers per day -- it simply cannot be done reasonably in an 8-hour workday. So, if you want to go seek out relevant laws, you should look for laws that limit the number of hours an employee can be expected to work given the contract they have. This is something the law can regulate. Of course, in the end, the law still isn't going to give you what you probably want: Is it productive to sue the university? In the best of cases, the university provides the support for this instructor that is necessary to actually guarantee that (i) students receive the support they need, (ii) your colleague gets to have a reasonable workload. But this is something that the university should really come to understand even without a lawsuit, and a lawsuit is unlikely going to improve the relationship of the instructor with the university. In reality, I believe that the only real avenue forward is to continue talking with the administration to make them understand the severity of the situation, and to make clear that there are only two possible outcomes: (i) the instructor is provided the help they need, (ii) the instructor burns out and quits their job. Any manager who comes to understand these kinds of choices will recognize that (i) is by far the less painful way, but it may require that multiple people with knowledge of the situation and the trust of the administrators make this point in a forceful and convincing way. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: ### Remove instructors names from the courses prior to signing up. Quite frankly, a university should design its courses so that it doesn't matter who's teaching them, simply as a matter of equity to the students - students who get taught by instructor A shouldn't have any particular advantage over students who get taught the same course taught be instructor B. There should be processes in place to make sure that all the instructors teaching a course are marking consistently, for instance. As a result, it shouldn't matter to the students who the instructors are - so there should be no reason to publish who is going to be teaching what course prior to the commencement of those courses. You mentioned in your comment that one of your students threatened to sue the last time the university tried to remove this information- and my response to that would have been "Go ahead, we have more money than you do," since unless the student in question was the child of a multimillionaire, it's highly unlikely that they'll have a budget that approaches that of even a small university. Additionally, I'm not a lawyer, but I really doubt that they have any legal grounds to sue over. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Shouldn’t learning disabled students be separated into different courses from students without disabilities? It doesn’t make sense to teach everyone the same way if people have differing needs and some people have needs that require a great amount of attention. One size fits all education doesn’t work, because additional resources must be provided regardless. I would recommend establishing a separate program or major of study for students with differing needs or transferring disabled students to a different program or college that can serve their needs without overworking any current staff. Otherwise, hiring additional staff specifically to address the needs of learning disabled students would be the only other option. The current staff who is known to be competent and popular can train new staff on addressing their needs. Limiting enrollment of disabled students would help the overworked staff but doesn’t resolve the issue of providing adequate education for disabled students since they will need to find alternate programs. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: The criteria for disability accommodations is that they be "reasonable" and that they maintain equal or equivalent academic standards. The school also must provide "equal access" to students with disabilities. So the case your colleague needs to make for an administrative solution is that what she is doing is (1) necessary for equal access compared with both her own nondisabled students and with nondisabled students in other sections and (2) unreasonable. It certainly sounds like (2) is the case, but for (1) she would need to convince them that she isn't just being "too nice." Postsecondary schools have pretty much no legal obligation to uphold any kind of standards for quality instruction, but they can't provide better instruction to nondisabled students. On the other hand, she could lean into this and get the dean to set up a section specifically for LD students. I don't know California law and I have no direct experience with CCs, but this should be perfectly legal, although I suppose there is some risk of a lawsuit being threatened from nondisabled students angry that their favorite teacher has been taken off the market. But you would need the disability services office as an ally, and the fact that they bounced you back to the dean makes me think that they are under-resourced as well and that the school just doesn't care very much about serving LD students. As a final suggestion, she could try to restructure her course on her own so that it is designed with the needs of LD students in mind (ie, "universal design") instead of designing it for non-LD students and then doing a lot of supplementary work to adapt it to LD students. Possibly the dean could also restrict enrollment through more conventional methods such as just putting her in a smaller room. If there is a campus organization for students with disabilities, it might be possible to enlist their help as well. It's too bad there is no union. This story is a textbook example of why faculty need to be unionized. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Such a large fraction of our students are neurodivergent in some way which affects their learning needs that we plan all our classes with common needs of such students in mind. As such: * All classes must have any audio/visual aids (such as powerpoint slides) available ahead of time, and be designed with dyslexic, ADHD and autistic/aspergers students in mind as much as possible. * Notes must be availalbe in printed form for all students * All lectures/classes are recorded and made available to all students. All recordings are automatically subtitled. * All reading lists are annotated with what is absolutely essential, what is recommned, and what is just for interest. * It is policy never to demand an answer to a question from a particular student in public. These adjustments deal with a large fraction of the needs of divergent students - not all, but they mean that a minimum is just part of the standard process of preparing a class, and the time alloaction to all classes provides for this work, irrespective of whether there are neurodivergent or disable students signed up. Implementing such a policy has several benefits: 1. Time allocations already take account of some of the extra time neccessary to make classes accessible to disabled/neurodivergent students. 2. All instructors will be forced to improve the accessibility of their classes, and so the gap between them and your colleuege in terms of attractiveness to students with different needs will be reduced. 3. Less time will be required to make adjustments for students with very specific needs. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: The instructor should not inherently be doing extra work for learning disabled students. This answer will not be a happy one. Like the OP, my teaching career has been composed of teaching at community colleges (two sites in the U.S. northeast). In both cases, there was a dedicated office of disability services that coordinated and provided extra support and services to learning-disabled students. The instructor is not obligated to provide extra services on their own recognizance. To be clear, the instructor may be contacted by disability services as they arrange certain services, e.g.: permission to use a calculator, have an assigned note-taker in class, extra testing time (proctored at the dedicated office), etc. Once in a while there is even a bit of debate over things being asked of the instructor by the disability office, and (successful) pushback from the academic department. I'll also say that, unlike the OP, I'm at an institution that is well unionized, and has a very clear contract for faculty. Extra time spent on engaging with learning-disabled students is not among the job obligations. Sadly, yes, the community college does get lots of learning-disabled students, and it is a great challenge and a great heartbreak to see them struggle with college, and in most cases fail. In the past I've very roughly guessed that maybe half of our overall student population may be in that situation (I'm certainly no expert!), and that the disability services clearly don't have resources to properly serve them all. (Related [question](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/11396/what-fraction-of-the-population-is-incapable-of-learning-algebra).) But that doesn't mean that the instructor should sacrifice their personal time and health to fill this gap. Nor can they; the abyss of need is far too deep. What is the solution to the individual instructor? The pickings seem slim. * Some have suggested "universal design" for teaching, in which course procedures are learning-disabled-friendly from the outset in some way. However, when I've researched that for my subject (math) in the past, the suggestions (from non-math-proficient education writers) were painfully infeasible/incoherent for the discipline. * I know of one college near me whose math department commits to seeking multi-million dollar grants annually, on a perpetual basis, so as to provide extra corequisite teaching supports for students with special needs (not necessarily specific to the learning disabled). Not something an individual instructor can arrange. The OP states that they've exhausted all options for extra support with local administration, and I'll assume that's true. To their core question: > > Is there any law that limits the number of disabled students that any > instructor must take on in a given semester? > > > To my awareness, there is no such law in the U.S. (or California, not that I'm an expert there). Such a regulation would frankly be counter to the overall practice of around the institution, in fact. U.S. states use the community college to pretend that anyone can achieve a higher education degree, taking the entire population of poorly-prepared and certified high school degree holders, funding it at a relatively indigent level, and mostly shrugging at the 20% or so graduation rates that result. It's a hard job to be on the ground here, trying to help, trying to manage your own emotional well-being, and witness the pain and failure. In the past I've compared it to being in a [MASH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_army_surgical_hospital_(United_States)) triage unit. A seminal essay on this subject was written in 1960 by <NAME>, who taught at U. of California, Berkeley, titled [The "Cooling-Out" Function in Higher Education](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2773649). It uses as a case study [San Jose City College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_City_College), a community college in San Jose, California. I found it to be quite eye-opening when I read it, and stunningly on-topic for our landscape today. I highly recommend it for you and your colleague. From the abstract: > > The wide gap found in many democratic institutions between culturally > encouraged aspiration and institutionally provided means of > achievement leads to the failure of many participants. Such a > situation exists in American higher education. Certain social units > ameliorate the consequent stress by redefining failure and providing > for a "soft" denial; they perform a "cooling-out" function. The junior > college especially plays this role. The cooling-out process observed > in one college includes features likely to be found in other settings: > substitute achievement, gradual disengagement, denial, consolation, > and avoidance of standards. > > > Judging from the last 60+ years of the institutional dynamics, it seems monumentally unlikely that any more assistance is coming for you or your colleague. As I've said to colleagues many times: you need to defend your time, and your mental health, first and foremost. Your colleague is taking on extra work (a Sisyphean amount of extra work) of her own volition, which is not part of the employment agreement. Your colleague's choice is clear: she either needs to stop, or else she will become irrecoverably sick. Self-care is essential. Take care of yourself first, or else you will become unable to help anyone else in the future. Upvotes: 3
2021/09/03	1,261	5,626	<issue_start>username_0: What would be better for a PhD admission? I'd suspect having a weak conference paper would certainly be the better option, but my supervisor was very adamant about not sending it to a weak conference, that a strong one would be preferable, even if rejected. And I think the chances of it being accepted into this strong conference he has in mind are practically zero. Edit: Just to clarify, by "PhD admission", I mean being accepted into a PhD program, to which I intend to apply. I'm currently a M.Sc. student.<issue_comment>username_1: If you plan to apply for a PhD in 2+ years, I would submit to the strong conference. If your current advisor is pushing for you submit to a top conference and has previously published in top conferences, he may have better insight as to whether it will be accepted. I would first submit to the conference your advisor has in mind, and if it gets rejected, you can later submit to a weaker conference. Depending on your field and the type of PhD program you're applying to, often times many students may not have publications when applying. If I were on a PhD committee, I would of course look for research experience. However, I would not judge a candidate who has a paper accepted at a conference with an acceptance rate of 75%+ to be superior to another candidate with similar experience. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Any accepted publication is better than no publication. However, strong conferences usually have good reviewers providing useful feedback that will help you to get the paper in shape for another strong conference. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It's easy to get a paper rejected from a strong conference - just submit something written in gibberish. Getting accepted is a different matter since it implies your paper meets some minimum standard. Therefore it's better to be accepted by a weak conference than rejected from a strong conference. Your situation however is different. You have an advisor (i.e. someone who is much more experienced in the field than you) who thinks you should submit to the strong conference. You judge the odds of acceptance as minute, but your advisor clearly doesn't think they are minute, or he would not recommend you submit there. Your advisor is more likely to be right than you are simply because he is much more experienced than you, so you should follow their recommendation. Note that getting rejected from a strong conference does not mean you will not be accepted by the weak conference; you probably still can get accepted there (if it is a recurring conference). Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: A possibility no one has yet mentioned: your advisor may be planning to write in your letter of recommendation “we wrote this paper that was so great we submitted it to...” From this purpose, it’s irrelevant whether the paper is rejected or not! Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The premise that getting rejected from a top conference is worth anything at all is ridiculous. To be rejected, all you need to do is submit something, even gibberish as @username_3’s answer suggests. This is no achievement whatsoever, and to submit something you think would definitely get rejected just so you can say you submitted to a top conference is an abuse of the academic publishing/conference system, and on top of that, one that doesn’t actually confer any advantage. It is only reasonable to submit to a top conference if you see a chance (even a small chance) of the work getting accepted. One can debate whether the low-ranked conference you might consider submitting to instead of the top conference would help with your PhD applications — it is true that for certain predatory or junk conferences the opposite would be the case. But for a legitimate conference with real standards, even if they are not the highest you can find, getting your paper accepted there would count at least as a modest achievement. One can also debate whether a small chance of getting accepted to a top conference is better than a higher chance of getting accepted at a not so well-ranked conference. Those types of questions definitely deserve careful consideration. But as I said, a rejection from a top conference is by itself worth nothing, and thus by definition is an inferior “achievement” to anything else whose value isn’t strictly negative. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: What do you mean by PhD admission, Dan? If you are at the MSc stage and looking to get onto a PhD programme, then having produced a paper worth consideration is already a nice plus. Timing is critical - if the paper is still in submission when the decision is taken, the prestige of the conference itself is more significant than the paper's ultimate fate. If you are talking about one of several papers submitted to obtain a PhD, the situation is more delicate and rather depends on the mores and prejudices of the field you are in. But some general considerations are: (1) The thesis is to be judged on its quality, independent of the publication status of its parts. (2) Having been published is obviously a plus, having been publicised in a reputable place all the more. (3) Many people feel every paper should be submitted to the most prestigious journal and or conference where it has a smidgen of a chance (with people having widely varying opinions on how much that smidgen should be!). Reading between the lines, by the way, it sounds to me like you might have dredged up a rather fly-by-night conference and your advisor said something like fergossakes don't even bother. Upvotes: 1
2021/09/03	1,454	6,083	<issue_start>username_0: I am doing a undergrad thesis under a professor. We decided to work on some domain say "X" however now he is giving me work related to some other domain say "Y". Both "X" and "Y" can be related to my degree however I wanted to work in domain "X" and there is no relation between "X" and "Y". I find it very difficult to work on something I am not interested in. I want suggestions from all professor and students what they think I should do ? Thesis is part of my degree and I don't have option of leaving it. In what way I should talk with the professor to give me work on the domain we decided on ? Our work has just started (around 1 day). If he does not have any topic in mind related to my domain, I can easily find and present some challenging thing to work upon. When I do some work I am interested in, I enjoy it irrespective of how challenging it is and I have total courage to do it alone. But if i am not interested in it then it's just painful for me. To be more specific, "X"=AI and "Y"=Simulation. Now the task I have been currently given is : There is simulation written in one language and I have to code the exact same thing in other language. It's around 1000 lines of code. I don't have knowledge of both the languages (since they are not used in AI (i.e they are not python or R)). They are modelling and simulation languages. I have to reverse engineer the code written in one language and translate to other. I don't find how this work is related to AI ? Also thesis is related to research and I don't see what research I am doing here.<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming your professor has some expertise in both X and Y, there is one possibility: > > your professor may be trying to build some foundation to X from point of view of Y. > > > Or, there may be some project which relates X and Y. 1 day is too early to protest that both of you have decided on one thing but now you are asked to do something else. Please wait for some time. I can not tell how much is a reasonable time, but, I would wait for two weeks and then see if it is working out or not. I would then ask the professor what could be a reason for asking you to do Y instead of X. Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There are three possible answers I can give you: a specific answer based on the information you have included at the bottom of your post, a bottom-up answer that hopefully makes sense to you at your current level of academic experience, and a top-down answer which makes sense to me as an (early career) academic but which might not make as much sense to you yet. Specific Answer --------------- Reverse-engineering code is a common task in some circles of academia. Often I want to use another person's code, but I need to either (a) fully understand how it works, or (b) modify it slightly to do something different that I want to do. In such situations, reverse-engineering is called for. Therefore, you are likely doing real academic work, even if it isn't exactly what you signed up for, and you will definitely learn something important. Which leads us to the ... Bottom-up Answer ---------------- If you are not sure that you will learn something important doing this reverse-engineering task, then ask your professor. It seems like the purpose of your work isn't clear to you, and when anyone isn't sure why they're doing something they're naturally not going to enjoy it very much. One way to structure the conversation with your professor is to ask these three questions: 1. What is the thing we are trying to do that has not been done before? 2. Why is it important that we are able to do that thing? 3. How will the work that I do enable us to do that thing? Be ready to do as much or as little reading as your professor assigns you. If your professor is at all a good professor, they will know that your understanding is key to achieving good results. If your professor isn't a good one -- well, you will still be able to learn something, hopefully. Which leads me to ... Top-down Answer --------------- From the viewpoint of a long-standing researcher, an undergraduate student often does not know much about the field of their interest. Undergraduate education is all about What We Know, and academic research is all about What We Don't Know, and the amount of knowledge you must have to even be able to ask good questions is often surprisingly large. This has consequences. For example, a lot of academic work looks surprisingly menial. It looks like understanding old papers, learning boring techniques, repeating old experiments -- and yes, reverse-engineering existing code. What your professor has assigned you may therefore be building a foundation for your future work that you don't appreciate yet. A lot of academic work, especially meaningful work, is also surprisingly cross-disciplinary. You mentioned that you can't see the connection between AI and simulation. But concepts from simulation -- sampling, ergodicity, entropy, autocorrelation, even free energies -- are vital to machine learning. On a practical level, many modern groups pushing the boundaries in machine learning are doing so to solve simulation problems -- such as the [AlphaFold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaFold) team at Google. So, what your professor is doing might also enable you to make unexpected connections that give you a competitive edge. So don't be too surprised that you are working on something that doesn't look like your main field of interest -- that is something that not only can happen from time to time, but must happen if you want to be at all an effective researcher in the future. Of course, I can't ask you to take this on faith, and it is your professor's job to at least partially convince you that what you are doing is worthwhile work. But if you have a clearly-defined goal with clearly-defined significance and a clearly-defined way to achieve it, then you should at least try to work at it for a while before worrying that it is irrelevant to your future. Upvotes: 3
2021/09/03	1,766	7,228	<issue_start>username_0: In my department, there is a professor who is not my advisor who constantly asks me about my career plans and how is it going with my research, how far I went in my research, and what did I do in that conference and this presentation ..etc. I am not comfortable sharing information unless it is necessary with anyone in the dept. even if this news is related to my career and I am very introverted too, he interferes too much in things that are non of his business and this is making me uncomfortable. I really want to put an end to it. Questions are very direct and usually followed by unasked-for advice: Like: Did you publish your conference paper yet? followed by advice of the form: you should do .... What schools are you applying for? what conference are you going to? followed by advice of the form: you should do ... How should I declare my boundaries more clearly? EDIT: I am almost sure that he has a romantic interest because he glances at me inappropriately and sometimes I catch him so he instantly looks away but, I did not want to mention that, it is not innocent mentoring or someone who is genuinely interested in helping me acing my discipline, he is extroverted and disagreeable, I am in a tough situation because usually women who hint or make the case that they are subjected to some sort of harassment are not taken seriously or being blamed for it and eventually alienated and no one will want to work with them so, if I have to take this route it has to be my last option. We meet in conferences, or while I am staying in the dept. late finishing some work he passes by for minutes. I will take a graduate course with him in the next semester so I will have to interact with him. I should also mention that my dept. is male-dominated and is small, so I am the only graduate female student there.<issue_comment>username_1: Maybe the question is "How to deal with a creep that may have some power over my career?". It is a truly fraught situation that, sadly, occurs too often in academia. It it may be one of the ways that women are chased out of some fields. If this were a person you met at the 'five and dime' you would probably just tell them to get lost. But this is dangerous for a student interacting with a professor. The first rule, is to make sure you are safe; both personally and professionally. One way to achieve this is not to act alone, but to seek allies who know the situation and who can act with you if needed. If there are other women in the department then talk to them about what experiences they have had and how they dealt with it. But make them aware, so that if it becomes necessary to escalate then you can do so as a group. Solidarity. If there is a female administrator at the university, or an office for counseling students, make them aware that the person is making you uncomfortable, though you don't (yet) know how serious the situation is. When possible, interact with the person only in groups. When possible, ignore them. When that doesn't work, say as little as you need to and move away. If you have to take more positive action, do so with your allies. A group is hard to ignore. If it goes on, a diary of interactions might be valuable. In extreme situations, I'd remind you that your phone probably has a record feature. They probably think their behavior is innocuous and it would be a shock to them to learn that it isn't. They might react badly. Try not to let that happen if you can do so within the "be safe" parameters. But, first, make sure you have backup. The advice in a comment by <NAME> may be good, depending on your advisor. You need to make a judgement call about that. Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You feel it is unacceptable, then so it is. But you have also the unbearable burden of him being in power position, at least until next semester. You mention you have classes with him: that is already an issue to be discussed formally, even if he is not a creep, he is at least a mansplainer and you can mention to your advisor it is impossible for you to work with him (I interpret you have classes with him as TA). Since you are introvert, and he is in a position of power, unfortunately I don't see any meaningful way for you to tell him "my advisor is taking good care of me, I do not need additional support, thanks" (where meaningful would be "get the f\\\* out of here"). Apart from the formal process, which is heavily country-dependent and it will take a long time, you still have a couple of indirect ways to try to shake him off from your daily life. First: if he express his (unwanted) interest by constantly entering into your office, tell him you are waiting for a phone-call to discuss a proposal or keep your headphones and tell him you are following a video presentation or take your phone in hand and tell him you need to make a private call (please note: the more clumsy you look, the better, he may understand he is doing something wrong...). If his attentions are expressed at the coffee corner, at the group meeting, etcetc, just stay close to the others (for example stay close to Mary, or to Benjamin, even if you barely know them) and deflect his questions ("did you publish your conference paper yet?" "oh no, it is a long way, Benjamin how long does it take you to publish a conference paper?"). You can try to ignore him, by replying "the same" and "it goes on" to any of his questions, or being proactive in constantly answering to his questions with other direct questions. If possible questions that implies he has to spend time and money. For example asking if he has an open position for a brilliant student from your former uni, asking him if he has any left over money to buy equipment for your group, asking him to cover the expenses of your master student (it does not matter if you have none, you can always say it is a master student you are planning to supervise). Or play dumb and ask him if he knows the meaning of mansplainer. If he explains it to you, then you can close the discussion with "ahah, a bit like you! I have a phone call, now, sorry", if he doesn't you can tell him "I guess it is someone that is explaining to women what they should do, I have a phone call, now, sorry" and close the small talk with that. You may look rude not answering to his questions, but given the conditions it is totally ok and you can just tell him "sorry, I am thinking of something else" and keeping on ignoring him. Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: If a professor asks you an unwelcome question about your research or career plans: > > Thanks very much for your enthusiasm for mentoring. It's great to know I can come to you for advice when I need it. Right now, I need to get back to my research. Bye! > > > Giving career and research advice is a good thing for professors to do. > > related to my career ... he interferes too much in things that are non of his business > > > I have to disagree with you. Universities are judged based on the career success of their students. As a student, your career is something all the faculty should be supporting when they can. You can always decline the support. Upvotes: 2
2021/09/04	860	3,652	<issue_start>username_0: There is a phenomenon in my country. I am not judging whether it is correct or not because of my ignorance on it. My honest opinion, as per my current knowledge, is that the phenomenon is bad as whole. The phenomenon is as follows: > > A student completes either doctorate or post graduation at university > or any academic institute named N. She gets appointment as assistant > professor in the same institute N whenever vacancies are present. > Although the percentage of such people vaires, the percentage is > significant. It may be above 50% in most of the cases. It is not just > happening in normal institutes but also in premier institutes. > > > I am providing two examples just for reference: [Anna University](http://cs.annauniv.edu/people/teaching.php), [IIT Kharagpur](https://cse.iitkgp.ac.in/?faculty.html). The medium of instruction in most of the institutes is English only. This question is not about discussing advantages or disadvantages or judging this phenomenon. The question is only about the existence of laws or rules prohibiting the happening of this phenomenon in US. Is there any such rule? If not exists country wide, then are there any universities with existence of such rule? I am not asking about permanent prohibition, but at least with some restriction to avoid that phenomenon.<issue_comment>username_1: Usually US universities have anti-discriminatory laws regarding hiring of candidates, which would forbid them from not hiring their own PhD students as tenure track or tenured faculties. Whether the practice is widespread probably depends on the University. I know of examples where PhD students were later hired as an Assistant Professor (Tenure Track) in US universities. However, in my (limited) experience, such phenomenon is quite rare. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: There is certainly no such general rule in the US. However, many (not all) universities would prefer not to hire their own graduates immediately, but are probably happy to bring them back after they have established themselves elsewhere, perhaps with a post-doc or a faculty position elsewhere. There are complementary reasons for it. The most fundamental one is that many faculty feel that a student has learned about as much as can be learned already working with the faculty of the home institution and that it will do them good, professionally, to be exposed to the ideas of others at a different institution. The lesser reason is that by spreading out their doctoral graduates they are also spreading out their own ideas. Another way to put it is that a new institution will benefit from the ideas that their recent graduates might bring to it. These combine into a situation where a department is more likely to bring in people with new ideas, a definite plus. The combination of these tends to make the world of scholarship more interconnected with more collaboration possibilities. This is, perhaps, less important in the internet age, but it was pretty strong previously. And those interconnections can be vital in driving knowledge (research, scholarship,...) forward. --- I'll also note that most faculty hiring at research universities in US requires a broad search; at least national. It can be very difficult to pre-select a candidate and then write a description of a job that will only really apply to that one person. I know of one case where this was attempted and the description provided was very detailed and exact. After it was broadcast, at least three other candidates appeared who met the criteria at least as well as the one originally desired. Upvotes: 3
2021/09/04	1,213	5,181	<issue_start>username_0: Many universities have service bureaus where one can obtain media in alternative formats (e.g. see the [University of Colorado](https://www.colorado.edu/accessible-technology/alternate-format)). These offices can transform books and articles into different formats such as large print, audiobook, or Braille editions. Generally speaking, if one of these services has been used to access sources in preparation for an academic paper, is it necessary to cite or acknowledge this? Way back when I was young, I was taught to always disclose the media format that I was actually using to write the paper. For example, if I was writing a Freshman paper on Hamlet and used the audio CD edition from College Shortcuts Audiobooks, Inc., I was expected to explicitly cite the CD version in my bibliography. Two reasons were given: first, that this was an exercise in honesty when so many students wanted to use shortcuts like Cliff's Notes and audiobooks (in other words, citing your actual source was an "admission" that you hadn't actually read the book), and second, that different editions of the same work sometimes included textual differences, errors, or even censorship (e.g. if the instructor knew that you were using the "for kids" edition of a literary work that omitted all of the sex jokes, they would understand why you never referenced any of them in your paper). These rationales may not be relevant when dealing with university-level alternative format media that are intended for persons with disabilities and presumably adhere to academic-grade high standards in accuracy. So, if I use my institution's disability services office to obtain an audiobook, large-print, Braille, or otherwise alternative edition of some article, am I expected to: * Explicitly cite the alternative format (e.g. "<NAME>. (2021) "An Analysis of Free Radicals Under Macroscopic Hypercube Regression Special Large Print Anti-Dyslexia Font Ed.. Podunk U Disabilities Office (2021), orig. printed in Advanced J. of Advancements in Advancing Science Stuff (2019, pp. 433-464)")? * Cite the "original" source material that the disabilities office used to produce my alternative format medium, but add an acknowledgment to my paper (e.g. "Thanks to the Podunk U Disabilities Office for making Smith R.'s (2019) paper available to me in a large print, dyslexia-friendly edition.")? * Just cite the original paper, omitting any mention of disability accommodations? Yes, I'm aware that there may be institution or journal-specific policies. I'm asking about general practices. Is this kind of citation or acknowledgment even a thing? If this differs between fields, that can be an answer. For example, "Yeah, nobody cares about how you accessed a mathematics, physics, or sociology paper, but Film Studies experts frequently hold that watching a movie with closed captions on is a different experience and needs to be disclosed, though of course you don't have to disclose whether you had them on because you have a disability or whether it was for some other reason.".<issue_comment>username_1: As you alluded to in your question, following particular journal or institutional practices is a good first step. As for a more general answer, you should cite the media to be as 1) accurate as possible and as 2) helpful to other scholars as possible. A few examples: 1. If you were using a different edition of a text (perhaps a 3rd edition with a new introduction by X scholar), you should indicate this in your citation to be as accurate as possible. 2. If a special print version (with larger text, for example) was used, the page numbers might be different. To be as helpful to other researchers, you should indicate this alternate version. If all text is the same and all page numbers line up in a special printing of a book, say a Braille edition, then the normal citation is probably accurate and helpful to scholars. However, it could be nice to indicate an acknowledgement of the accessibility service’s effort in obtaining a special volume for your work. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Citing the alternative format is going to be a disservice to both your readers and to the authors of the original paper. For the readers you are adding an extra complication in figuring out the original source (even if it is just disregarding half of the information in the reference). For the authors the problem is that citation data bases probably won't be able to identified that their paper was indeed cited, and will thus not count it. Maybe citing counts shouldn't matter, but in practise they do. You should be mindful of potential discrepancies though. A common issue would be page numbers. Don't give wrong paper numbers. Either omit them altogether, or better, get someone to figure out the page numbers in the original of whatever specific points you are making. When to comes to acknowledgements: If you want to highlight the importance of accessibility, you should feel free to include this. If you don't want to draw attention to a disability, you should feel equally free to not mention this. (This is from a math/CS perspective.) Upvotes: 4
2021/09/04	816	3,110	<issue_start>username_0: I have at least 3 offers from some of the top research institutes in my country (Written examination +interviews) in Computer Science. Should I mention them in my CV? Would it strengthen my CV?<issue_comment>username_1: Thinking strategically, I guess I wouldn't mention them. There is a possible upside as you note, but the potential downside is that if people think you are already settled and have other offers there is little need to press for your admittance. And that isn't one of the things that admissions committees are normally looking for in a student. They will do their own analysis of your potential rather than defer to the decisions of others. But the deeper reason is that if you are good enough to get those offers, then your record is also probably good enough without mentioning them to have a good chance to be accepted at a good US school. But if you make application, don't limit yourself to only top US research institutions. There is too much competition for too few slots for that to be a good strategy. Don't ignore the top places, but also spread out your applications to cover yourself if you really want to study in US. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This system isn't familiar to American admissions committees. Institutions don't have admission exams1. There's the [GRE](https://www.ets.org/gre/), but many departments don't see it as very useful, and that's not administered locally. So listing acceptances will make it look like you don't understand US admissions, and I suspect a committee might not want to spend time on a student on the other side of the planet who already has local options. > > The colleges I'm talking about are: IMSc Chennai, TIFR Mumbai, CMI, ISI Kolkata. ([comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/175188/does-having-multiple-phd-offers-from-top-local-universities-help-in-us-admission?noredirect=1#comment470308_175188); edited for grammar) > > > I haven't heard of any of these universities - although I'm not in Computer Science. So unfortunately, name-dropping these might not be very useful. Here is how I would list it in an awards/honors section: > > Passed national competitive entrance exams at: Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai (percentile: 98th) ... > > > or maybe > > Passed national competitive entrance exams at: Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai (pass rate: 30%, n = 6,000) ... > > > You'll have to mess around with the formatting and maybe not list all five depending on spacing, etc. --- 1: Except maybe for some licensed professions. Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: No, on your CV, list only your actual accomplishments and honors, not the offers you never accepted. List the work you did and the places you studied or worked, not stuff you didn't. If it does get to the point where you have multiple offers and you're trying to decide between them, that's when those other offers may become relevant. For example, you might reveal a competing offer as a way of negotiating a better offer from the school you really want. Upvotes: 1
2021/09/05	930	3,822	<issue_start>username_0: I'm a Masters (Physics) student from India and I am looking to apply to the UK and Europe for a PhD for Autumn 2022. I am making a list of people I would like to work under. In doing so I have a few questions. I am set to graduate from my Masters in April 2022 and will have a thesis dissertation by then (which I have just begun work on). Approximately at what point should I start emailing them to see if they'd be interested in considering my application (interview/submitting grades, transcripts etc). I would like to have at least my grades for this semester with me - which I will receive around early December. Would that be too late? I have seen a few funding deadlines in the UK around January. The reason I'm apprehensive about emailing now is because my second semester grades are quite bad (I'm in my third semester now). I've had a very good academic record throughout my Bachelor's (9+ CGPA /10) and my first semester of the Masters was also good (8.4/10), but thanks to Covid and having to move across the country in the middle of the semester, my second semester did not go well and so my overall CGPA dropped (7.67/10). I'm confident I will improve by the end of this semester. My Master's is also at a much better ranked university (Top 5 in my country) but I am not sure how much this will help offset the drop in grade. If I am emailing professors, do I need to include all my details (scores, SOP and so on) in the initial mail itself, or can I just send an inquiry, with my CV and maybe mentioning a one or two of their papers which interests me.<issue_comment>username_1: In the UK at least, almost all science PhD scholarships are attached to specific projects or programmes, which will have published application dates on relevant department websites or places like FindAPhD.com . This will also have info on what's required for the application in terms of transcripts, CV etc. So, for the vast majority of PhDs you don't have flexibility around waiting for grades - you'll just need to submit whatever you have at the deadline. Having said that, the benefit of contacting professors early is also quite marginal. Typically all applications are collected and evaluated together after the closing date based on the submitted application paperwork alone, so any prior inquiries won't impact on that. If you do have a real specific question about the project/group you could mail the professor, but just announcing that you want to apply isn't going to affect the process in any way. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are applying to a PhD in the UK, it all comes down to how you plan to fund things. If you are applying to specific programs - generally either government or charity funded, but username_1's answer is the way to go. In theory, for the first time last year, government funded programs are allowed to take up to 30% of their students from overaseas. Just look for the adverts and apply as though it were a job. The alternative is that you plan to either fund the PhD your self (you'd need access to a LOT of money to do this), or apply for some sort of personal scholarship (an example open to indian students would be the [Commonwealth fellowship](https://www.britishcouncil.in/study-uk/scholarships/commonwealth-scholarships)). Scholarships will require you create an application together with the supervisor. This is a large time investment for both you and the supervisor. You'll want to look up the application deadline for whatever scholarship you are proposing, and contact maybe three months prior to this. I'd probably suggest you don't contact a potential supervisor without an idea of how you will fund your studies. Its just possible they may know of some source open to you that you don't know about, but its unlikely. Upvotes: 0
2021/09/05	1,046	3,865	<issue_start>username_0: Do Chinese-speaking universities operate on a 996 schedule, meaning that under normal (non-pandemic) circumstances they expect their employees to be present from 9am-9pm or longer, six days a week or more? I don't refer to the actual time working: for example, many (lower rank) academics work all their waking hours every day of the week. I am referring to the time you have to show up.<issue_comment>username_1: As far as I know, this depends on the department and the PI. In China, getting tenure is difficult, partly because of the low percentage of assistant professors receiving tenure. Usually less than 20% of the tenure-track faculty at top universities receive tenure, and this could be as low as 3% at several universities, e.g. [Sun Yat-sen University](https://dt88news.com/guanzhu/67505.html) in Guangzhou (link in Chinese). So, assistant professors tend to work extra long hours, especially in the lab-based sciences. Even if you don't work for an AP, some PIs tend to ask their students to work long hours. In China, graduate students are not afforded protection under labor laws, and even full time employees are often asked to "voluntarily forfeit" overtime pay. This is a flagrant violation of labor regulations, yet it has become the norm nowadays, so some managers (in and outside of academia) do this without remorse. Chinese workplaces love carding employees in/out: usually, students and postdocs are asked to card in and card out when they arrive at and leave the lab, respectively. If you work for a demanding PI, then you likely do have to show up for long hours (e.g., you must card in by 9am and may not card out before 9pm). So, 12 hours per day, definitely not unheard of. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: OK, maybe I could be the right person to answer this question for you. I am Chinese, and I did my Bachelor's and Master's from Peking University in China, and I got my Ph.D. in the US. First and foremost, I can surely tell you that right now all Chinese Universities have more strict and rigorous requirements for graduate students (Ph.D. and Master) to get degrees, all because of an actor's plagiarism scandal that happened in 2019 (check Tianlin Zhai plagiarism scandal). So I assume you plan to go for a Ph.D in China. If you go for a Ph.D. in the top-level universities in China (Project 985 University), or the Chinese Academy of Science, you will have a lot of pressure, same as if you pursue a Ph.D. in the US. You have to publish 3 first-author peer-reviewed manuscripts in SCI-level journals and finish a dissertation written in Chinese. So back to your question: do you have to follow a 996 schedule? As far as I know, right now many professors wouldn't ask their Ph.D. to do this, however, many Ph.D. worked on weekends voluntarily because they have to make good progress and publish papers. So it really depends on your research progress yourself. I really don't think your professor would force you to follow 996, but if you feel behind or you feel the pressure to graduate, you may force yourself to work on the weekends. When I studied in the US for my Ph.D., my advisor never asked me to follow a 996 schedule, but I worked 6 days a week in order to get more results and publish high-quality papers. All in all, doing a Ph.D. in top-level universities in China is the same as you pursuing a Ph.D. in the US, Canada, or Europe. You need to take courses, publish papers, pass PhD qualify exam, finish the dissertation, oral defend Ph.D., and eventually and congratulations get your degree. PS: If you really really plan to purse a graduate school degree in China, try the universities in the 985 Project University List in China. Honestly, I really don't think foreigners would benefit a lot if you enroll in a graduate program that is not on the 985 Project list. Upvotes: 3
2021/09/05	755	3,059	<issue_start>username_0: One of my research colleagues has a BSc degree in Biology with a CGPA of 3.93 and has been involved in research for about 2 years after completing his BSc. Actually, he has been involved in research since he was in his 3rd year so that makes it more than 3 years of him being involved in research. Currently, he has 25 Scopus indexed papers (15 research papers, the rest are review papers) and 14 PubMed indexed papers (10 research papers, the rest are review papers). He has worked in three specific sectors of biology with 5-6 different supervisors. He has the first authorship in about 9 of his publications and the impact factor of the journals where his papers are published ranges from 0.7 to 5.2, with most of the papers in the 1.0 to 2.0 range. Most of his papers have about 5 to 7 co-authors. He is so passionate about research and he likes to write review articles. But he is currently worried whether too many publications will harm his chance of getting admitted into graduate programs. So, I would appreciate any suggestions regarding this problem.<issue_comment>username_1: It is really hard to see how it would hurt. A very few might question whether the person actually needs a degree to verify what they are already capable of, but most know that the degree is necessary for advancement. I think it more likely that a degree could be expedited for such a person, though not all requirements would be waived. I also think that a lot of labs would be more than happy to welcome this person who likely has a lot of experience and ideas. I don't see a problem, but I haven't seen the application either. The particular question, however, shouldn't lead to worry. Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: If the research papers are solid research papers, the friend should try some fast-track PhD, maybe in Europe, like take the rest of the current unpublished research, add a little more and write a thesis and be done after 1 year. Going through a full PhD program looks like a serious waste of time for them. Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: > > But he is currently worried whether too many publications will harm his chance of getting admitted into graduate programs. > > > Yes, for Computer Science. If an undergrad student in CS tells me that they have 25 papers, then I can definitely tell all of them are rubbish, even if they are not in predatory journals. After becoming a 1st year PhD student (10+ years ago), I was invited to serve as a program committee member for many conferences in my home country. They were not predatory conferences, and they had proceeding in IEEE Explore. But I never wanted to publish anything there, even for a free trip going home. The time they spent on writing 25 rubbish papers, the could have, instead, spent on writing just 1 paper in a top tier conference. Publishing 25 papers during undergraduate just means the student or the lab they worked at focus on the quantity instead of quality. That mentality is very very bad for future research. Upvotes: 3
2021/09/05	356	1,411	<issue_start>username_0: I'm a post-grad MS student doing my thesis in a lab. Should I put this on my resume/CV or leave it out? If so, how do I word it?<issue_comment>username_1: In most places RA is a specific title/job, given by the university. It isn't something you can assume or claim on your own. Give a description of what you do, not a title. It might be considered fraud if anyone thought to check. Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: My answer will focus on the US, it might be different where you live. Some countries consider PhD to be an employment (not student) position, for example, so it can definitely make a difference. In the US, a Research Assistant is an official research position that you are hired and compensated for. You would only list this if you were actually hired by the university to work as a Research Assistant. The work done in your thesis is not the same thing. An RA's research may or may not relate to their thesis, it doesn't actually matter in this case. The thesis itself is part of your work as a student, not an RA. If you were hired as an RA, you can list that as a separate employment position. If you just did a thesis as a student, that is part of your education and not an RA position. Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Ask your advisor if your department recognizes you as a formal research assistant. If yes, indicate it; if not, don’t. Upvotes: 1