date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2022/07/08
| 1,023
| 4,401
|
<issue_start>username_0: Say, a brand/company like Intel provides a free service — specifically large computational resources (a cluster that could be used for AI, machine learning etc.). In business, it falls under "sponsorship". In return for its sponsorship the brand wants... VISIBILITY. And of course, "visibility" can come in many forms.
But the essence is:
It's a business transaction. Not a charity event.
For a business/brand being associated with scientific research (which results in a paper) has value. For the researcher writing a paper getting free resources has value.
A business sponsors research and expects **brand visibility** in return.
So, the question is:
How can the brand get *maximum* visibility for sponsoring a paper?
(or sponsoring the **research** that results in a paper)
Getting merely a footnote mention or being hidden somewhere in the back in an "acknowledgments section" seems like a poor value to the brand/company providing the resources.
Of course, in general, one could argue that there are better ways to do "marketing". But here we assume that the company WANTS to provide resources and hopes to get some brand visibility out of that. (the more the better)<issue_comment>username_1: The normal way to do this, is through the Acknowledgements section. This could contain a line like:
>
> "HPC resources for this work were provided by institution X."
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Usually an institution will partecipate in studies if they have an interest in it.
For example, this researcher:
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pradeep-Dubey-4>
has a long career workign for Intel, and there are many scientific papers which base their results on computations perfomed on Big Blue (Intel supercomputer) with their name and Intel as their institution/affiliation as co-author, papers spanning from statistics to geophysics.
Surely he contributed more than providing the script grammar to launch simulations on Big Blue, but having a person from the hosting institution actively involved in the computations does not seem a far fetch to me.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In my opinion, what you want to do is inappropriate. A research paper is not a suitable venue for advertising or providing brand visibility to a corporation. Any attempt, beyond an acknowledgment or the listing of an affiliation, is likely to be shut down by the editors. Please don't try.
However, there are other ways in which a researcher could draw attention to their sponsor. Perhaps the best is to create a **good personal website**.
It is common for username_3s to create websites where they might do any of the following: post preprints of their papers; advertise their work and that of their students and postdocs; recruit prospective students; provide links to resources they value; and generally draw attention to where they feel it is deserved. If I'm interested in a researcher's work, I will often find may way to their website at some point.
So, create a good website promoting the research, and add as much brand visibility for the corporate sponsor as you like.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Acknowledgement in the paper is the credit on the username_3 side. That's all the credit a company gets or deserves within academia, it's perfectly suitable to be in the acknowledgements. Others who provided their time or money will also be found there. Often the methods section will also describe the computing resources. Other username_3s who want to use the same resources will know where to go.
Marketing is the company's business and is up to their goals.
They can make a TV ad saying "our resources were provided free to 1,000 username_3 projects with a total worth of $XYZ, so buy our brand of paper towels".
They can say to their computing customers "hey computing customers, here are some papers where people used our stuff with good results, therefore you can expect good results, too, when you pay to use the same resources."
And, importantly, they can go to the government agency that sponsored their company to develop this computing resource (don't think that every time a company does this sort of thing they are actually spending their own money... Companies get government grants, too) they can include it in the successful use of those funds towards a cause for the public good.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/09
| 848
| 3,409
|
<issue_start>username_0: Briefly speaking, I recently found out that my graduate research paper has some citation errors. Which is really poor citations.
1. I cited a wrong author name (author A) for a sentence which actually came from another author (author B). However, I did cite both authors in my reference list.
2. Some of my figures' citations didn't follow the correct format. I did cite the author and date, just in the wrong format.
I am not sure how serious these problems can be. Are these errors considered as plagiarism?
I really didn't copy anyone's works, just gave wrong citations. I know this is very dumb and not professional. I feel pretty guilty and anxious right now.
**Update:**
I have further look into my thesis. I summarize with my citation errors as following (except the previous errors):
1. I cited a source in-text (author, date, source), but forget to put in my reference list.
2. I cited a web source, but it is actually came from a report. I cited as an internet source.
3. Misspelling.
4. Wrong order number of tables/figures.
My thesis now looks like a total trash to me. So my next question is:
What is my next move?
1. Erratum maybe?
2. Notify my professor?
3. Let it go? (This is a master thesis, unpublished, but public.)
First one is kinda useless, because my school does not accept any revision or change.
My first priority is to not commit any misconduct/dishonet.<issue_comment>username_1: No.
1 is sloppy, and you should take care to avoid things like that in the future. But you were not trying to pretend it was your original idea or phrase.
2 is nothing like misconduct of any kind. It is only an issue of style.
**Update (four new points):**
These are all sloppy, but not misconduct or dishonest.
Make a list of all the errors and a new version of the thesis. Send them to your professor and say you would like to correct the public version or at least attach a list of errata. Follow whatever the professor recommends, except that if they say you can't do anything, then perhaps you could put the errata on your own personal website.
For point 4, in the future you should consider using software or software features that does the numbering of tables and figures automatically, which would make this kind of mistake impossible.
It is good that your first priority is to avoid misconduct. And as far as I can see from these mistakes, you have not committed anything like misconduct.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: *This community wiki answer was created from a high quality answer-in-the-comments.*
I am an academic misconduct officer at my university and look into these things. Clearly you made an effort and didn't try to cover up anything (or copy and paste text and claimed it as your own). Without having seen your work, I would put it down as poor academic practice but not plagiarism. The reference are there but not correctly formatted / cited. If it helps you, read any scientific paper and look through their references, chances are you will find inconsistencies even at that level. I wouldn't worry too much about it. If it does bother you, you can always put in a correction.
I also recommend [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64&t=8s) showing what real academic misconduct looks like. After seeing that, I think your citation mistake will not look as bad in comparison
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/09
| 1,027
| 4,136
|
<issue_start>username_0: If you are doing a PhD thesis in science, can you ask for help? For example, paying someone to solve some hard equations or use numerical method to solve a problem.
Or if you ask for someone for an idea, do you need to cite them in your references ?<issue_comment>username_1: Paying someone is not *asking for* help, it’s *hiring* help. The circumstance you describe is indeed better described as seeking a collaborator, from which you might *learn* how to solve the problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Your advisor is the first source of help. A good one will provide it, but sometimes by sending you off to read something. For many students (myself included) the idea for a research topic comes from the advisor. Regular meetings with them are also advised and you should mention where you are stuck when it happens. You might get an answer. You might get a hint. You might get sent to another source. All are helpful.
Whether advisors are co-authors or not (my preference is *not*) is field dependent. In math it seems pretty rare, for example, and in the past was mostly non-existent.
As for paying people to do some technical things, that may be allowed or not, but the advisor is the one to ask in your particular case. But other kinds of consultations are normally allowed and mostly don't rise to the level of co-authorship. It is possible, of course, but that might also put the degree itself in jeopardy when the rules are strict. Some fields are funny that way. A brief conversation in math can provide the crux of the answer to the key problem of a "thesis".
I once heard the joke (I hope) that an advisor, speaking to a student, said "I don't mind writing your dissertation, but I'll be damned if I'll explain it to you when I'm done."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd advise against it, strongly. In the UK, universities usually align their degrees with the quality assurance agency (qaa), similar institutions exist elsewhere (I would hope anyways...). They set out what a student must demonstrate upon completion in order to receive the degree. For a phd thesis, it boils down to 2 things: does the student's work merit publication and can the student discuss the wider research context of their field of expertise with experts in the field. (you can read the one page summary here: <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/qualifications-frameworks.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiFkvyDivT4AhWDiFwKHUjED3kQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0bJwZ8CalHxQMHlnkIKoMT> ). Both these qualities are aimed at making you an independent researcher and independence comes with experience. If you have a particularly challenging problem, you should solve it yourself, there is a reason why phd studies take that much longer than msc studies, for example. You are given plenty of time to fail and learn, this is how you gain expertise and ultimately transform into a independent researcher. I remember having to derive Equations I didn't understand at first in my PhD, in my thesis they were 30 pages long and it took me 6 month to understand and drive them. The implementation took another 6 month, but during that time I could really feel how I transformed from a student to a researcher.
You should also check your university's handbooks should you decide to pay for help. In our case this is a big issue and will automatically start an academic misconduct investigation. I had a student trying to do just that, in the end that student didn't finish their study and this was part of the reason we had to force a termination on the student. Its not something you want to go through, I really recommend to make tough problems your own, deal with them until you get sick of them, then you'll progress. This has been every phd journey that I have witnessed around me.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: You usually sign a statement saying that you did everything by yourself.
However, a possibility can be to do a paper-based doctorate, where you might collaborate with someone that is able to the stuff you can't (and don't want to learn)
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/09
| 252
| 1,123
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing a poster presentation for a scientific conference. When I published my work, I was affiliated with institution X. After my publication, I moved to institution Y. Now, I want to put my affiliation on the poster as well as the institution logo. My question is simple. Which institution should I put on the poster, X or Y? Is it allowed to put both of them since this work was published with an affiliation X but now I am at institution Y?
Your answers are appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: The conference and people viewing your poster will not care. Ask your supervisor, just in case they care.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You should indicate the institution where the bulk of the work was done. Then a simple footnote stating “present affiliation: University Y” will do the trick.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: In pure-ish mathematics, you should put the institution where you are currently. A simple footnote stating "Thanks to University X where most of this work was done" will give proper acknowledgement (but is not required).
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/10
| 450
| 1,921
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a master student and I haven't published any paper yet. I have a manuscript of research but it recently got rejected. I wonder if I can put this in my CV (I might apply for a PhD) since it's empty in my publication section. Can I mark it as manuscript or something?<issue_comment>username_1: Don't do it - mainly because it's easy to get rejected (just submit something in gibberish) but much harder to get accepted.
Instead submit it somewhere else and put "so-and-so paper, submitted to [big name journal]" in your CV.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are working to improve the paper or its underlying research with the hope of publishing it later, include a "Work In Progress" section on your CV and list the project there instead. Give the project a descriptive name and indicate that you have a paper in preparation. Don't say that it was already rejected, since it would be different in any future submission.
Having work in progress is an advantage in any academic application.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: (Building on comments by @CameronWilliams and others under the question.)
Many journals, including those in the Nature and Lancet groups, accept submission of a paper uploaded to a preprint service *that they approve*. So it's worth checking the journal websites. Also, if you submit to a journal you might not get the initial response, never mind reviews, for months. Uploading preprints to Arxiv, Medrxiv, Biorxiv, etc or to journal own preprint servers speeds up research dissemination and is pretty standard nowadays.
If you think your paper is worth showing to people, I'd put it to a good preprint service and link it up on your CV. Before that, it could make sense to accommodate reviewer's suggestions and others' feedback on your paper (eg, your instructor's, especially if you'd need a reference from them later).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/10
| 346
| 1,462
|
<issue_start>username_0: During an exam, I committed codes into my repository on GitHub.
In this case, am I involved in academic dishonesty for providing answers in public even though my repository was set as private?<issue_comment>username_1: If you were setting the access to be limited to only you, then you did not share your code. It is not different from saving your code on a USB.
Intent and motivation enter the picture here. If by accident you made your code public during the exam, you would have only be engaged in academic dishonesty if you intended it to be used by other students.
It also seems unlikely that someone would have noticed your upload.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You didn't make the answers public. But it is likely that you did break some other rule.
Read the rules of the university to find whether you broke a rule. And you should probably delete the code from Github.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all: Depending in which country you live in, that code of yours is protected by copyright law and is yours. You may be free to publish, sell or license it.
However, I am not sure, if you were allowed to use any external sources during your examination (if it was a take-home-exam, probably yes).
In my experience as a university teacher for 7 years (although a very different field): as long as you don't post "this is the answer to the exam question X", there should not be a problem.
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/07/10
| 2,007
| 8,468
|
<issue_start>username_0: I will be applying to CS PhD programs coming fall. I have a BA in Mathematics right now.
I am hearing that it is harder to get into a CS PhD program if I state I want to study Theoretical Computer Science because there are less funding opportunities for the area. So if I state I want to study TCS in my SOP, I might have a hard time getting in to a program as opposed to something like Systems or AI that have lots of funding and faculty who are willing to take students. Is this true at all? I am talking about getting into a CS PhD program in the first place by indicating my interest in TCS. I am kind of worried because I do want to pursue TCS in grad school and have done undergrad research in coding theory and also number theory.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a US-based answer.
Theoretical computer science is indeed less well-funded, but it is also less popular, and the effect of this on graduate admissions is complicated. You should also consider the effect on your eventual chances for jobs after you finish your PhD.
The main effect of TCS being less well-funded is that many lower-ranked, smaller departments do not have anyone in TCS at all and have no plans of hiring anyone, because the people they can hire in TCS would not be able to get funding. If your record can only get you admitted to, say, University of Georgia, then you are out of luck; they don't have any faculty with primary interests in TCS as far as I can tell.
On the other hand, if you are competitive for admission at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, then you probably need a slightly less impressive record to get admitted in TCS, because they have a lot more applicants interested in AI/ML than their faculty can advise, whereas they only have somewhat more applicants interested in TCS than faculty availability.
You should make sure you are only applying to departments with several faculty primarily interested in TCS, but if you are doing that (and competitive for admission in those departments), then mentioning an interest in TCS probably helps your application.
You should also consider the other end. Once you get a PhD, only the best researchers in the TCS will eventually get faculty jobs at research universities (or research jobs in industry), whereas merely good researchers in other areas frequently manage to get faculty jobs.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Actually, in the US, you have a lot of time after entering a doctoral program with a bachelors to choose a specialty. The first years are advanced coursework leading to comprehensive exams. You get to look at both areas of specialization and faculty members who might advise you.
Whether a university is more interested in theoretical CS or hot topics like AI depends on the faculty and also on which of the faculty are looking for doctoral advisees.
I wouldn't be too concerned, but it would probably be good to keep your options open for the moment and project some flexibility in a statement of purpose. Saying that your current interests are in more theoretical aspects is almost certainly fine.
Note that acceptance in the US is broad based. A single thing, especially a statement of interest in theory, is likely to have very little weight compared to things like GPA, letters of recommendation, specific courses, and such.
Also note that funding is less for many theoretical fields is less because less is required. If you don't need expensive labs/equipment then there are few funding requirements. Most students in such fields are supported as teaching assistants, which provide a service to the university and are adequately funded. TCS and math are similar in this regard. Even in physics, some theoretical aspects require little if any funding beyond salary. Einstein didn't require an experimental setup to come up with special relativity. (IIRC he was terrible at experimentation.)
Don't overthink it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Graduate studies are no cake-walk. You will likely be totally on your own, motivation-wise. Your advisor will advise you, but very likely it will be up to you to develop the motivation to actually get through - do not expect your advisor to pull you along.
Doing things that interest and motivate you in themselves makes a *huge* difference when the going gets tough. In the best case, the time will fly by and you will be sad when it's over. If instead you study something that does not really interest you, chances are you'll not get through the darker phases.
Another aspect: If I were on the committee that interviews graduate applicants, I would strongly look for people that show great interest (and somehow give me the feeling that they are able to do it, of course). *Especially* because that field has less funding, they will try to pick the cherries amongst the applicants. And vice versa - if you apply to a ML/AI course, and the board notices that you don't really feel like it's the most interesting thing for you, your chances of getting taken might diminish significantly.
So, do what your heart tells you. Of course, don't be blind to realities, but if you burn for TCS, then study TCS.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I am a TCS grad student. Yes, it is noticeable that there is much more funding for ML/AI right now. My advice is to do (or at least try) what interests you. However, I will point you to another field that recently seems to have a hype going on and might be an option for you -- Quantum Computing.
This is not my area of research and so I am not that much into it, and it is definitely a broad field. But in certain areas of QC there is much of TCS involved -- BQP; QMA; the recent result MIP\* = RE; Quantum fine-grained complexity, ...
As said, I do not know much about this field, but from what I do know your math background might be beneficial here -- Hilbert spaces, Unitary Matrices, the Spectral Theorem, all stuff that pops up there (to be honest in a finite-dimensional toy variant most of the time, but anyway, depends on how much you want to delve in) and you probably already have learnt (some of) this stuff as a mathematician.
As far as I heard, it is not expected that this QC hype ends soon. Companies are already establishing use cases, consulting companies evaluating applications and in general it is expected to have an impact on industry in the near future (some say next 10 years, some say next 30 years). Furthermore, there is some kind of a national competition between the US and China on quantum supremacy (and also Europe is investiging a lot recently, but as far as I know they buy their hardware in the US).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I am hearing that it is harder to get into a CS PhD program if I state I want to study Theoretical Computer Science because there are less funding opportunities for the area. So if I state I want to study TCS in my SOP, I might have a hard time getting in to a program as opposed to something like Systems or AI that have lots of funding and faculty who are willing to take students.
>
>
>
The statement about AI is not correct. In fact, AI/ML widely considered the most competitive field to apply in right now, and much more competitive than theory and systems, because there is an explosion of applicants interested in pursuing a PhD in AI/ML, with generally far fewer faculty available than can advise all those interested.
Zooming out a bit: your ability to get in to a PhD program in an area X is roughly a function of (1) your application strength in X (rec letters, profile, and interests), (2) funding in area X, (3) the number of candidates interested in X. You are very focused on (2), but (1) and (3) are probably more important, especially if you are open to being funded through TA-ships rather than RA, which typically doesn't need the faculty to have as much external funding.
Comparing between theory and systems, it's less obvious; as far as I have seen, neither theory nor systems is especially hot at the moment, so they may be roughly equivalent (for metrics (2) and (3)).
This is all besides the point, though: if you are interested in theory research, why not give yourself a chance and apply? By far the most important factor to do a successful PhD is that you are working in a field you believe in. Without a doubt, your interest and excitement at this stage will take you further than just following the money. Good luck!
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/10
| 2,011
| 8,292
|
<issue_start>username_0: A bit of a background.
I'm a physics student and at the end of September I will finish my Thesis and get my 5 years degree (1 and a half year late). I have done my graduate studies with a specialization in Theoretical Physics. Even though I've gotten through my degree with the best possible grades (that's the year and half) I've realized too late that physics it's not what I want to do and, of course, this has brought me to study just to pass test and not to understand physics making me very bad even at things that I should know (It is apparent to any physicist who talks to me for more than 5 minutes, like the supervisor of my thesis).
Knowing now myself I would have loved (and probably I would have been much better) taking an engineering degree.
So now I feel without any option left, having acquired 0 marketable skills. Should I go into a PhD hoping to find something more engineering-like that I could like and could lead me to have a job in the field after it? And even if I find it I'm not really sure I could take that position given my lack of understanding of even the basics of physics (imagining myself having to take teaching duties on things I barely understand is laughable). The other option is to stop here and try to find an admittedly enjoyable coding job (that's the most technical job one can get with just a Physics degree) but it would still require me months of studying to have a chance in a interview. As a last thing, I'm 26 years old and not having any financial income it's quite a burden so this add to the list before.
Honestly, I feel like choosing a physics degree ruined my life and I don't know what to do.
EDIT:
To be more clear, I don't want to be a Physicist in the sense that learning for the sake of it it's not something that I want to do, so research is a nono. If I find a job as a, say, software engineer I would not mind expanding my knowledge to which I would see a practical application to.
What are my options (I don't mind to move around the Europe) at finding a job using my physics degree. Possibly a coding job (as I said, it's quite enjoyable).
Or, could pursue a PhD be a good choice to get more insight in some field of engineering (It's the only way that I see to acquire marketable skill), so that for when it's over I could use these skills to work in the field?
For example, all the people that I know that completed 5 years degree in either computer science or electronic engineering got a job (in their field) in less than 2 month from their degree.<issue_comment>username_1: Surprisingly common complaint. At least even if you graduate late, you did well grade-wise. Most people didn't.
In my opinion, it's good to be somewhat realistic about the local job market. Type in "physics" on job search websites, and see if anyone in your city or country is actually explicitly looking for a physics graduates. People always say finance or software industries recruit a lot of physics graduates. I don't think that's generally true, and highly dependent on many factors. But if you can afford it, give a coding bootcamp a try.
There's obviously the option to do a masters or phd in engineering. A lot of engineering programs are willing to admit physics majors. But it's still the same physics, something that you don't particularly enjoy. And it may not even have a great job market either, depending on your location.
Other than that, I think you're aware about the possibility of becoming a teacher, or a tutor of some kind. And if your native language is English, there's always the option to teach English in Asia or other countries. Or even online.
There are less traditional jobs such as youtubers or streamers. I don't know what it takes to make a living income with them.
But first things first, I suggest you talk with your parents/relatives and friends. And ask if they can set you up with a job or an interview. Good old ~~nepotism~~ networking. I don't think you're alone in this situation, especially among your cohorts. Ask what their plan is. A lot of people don't do a job related to their degree.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many students with a degree in physics, even theoretical physics, end up in interesting jobs never doing physics. I myself have a PhD in theoretical physics, but built my career in commercial roles in industry. You need to realise that completing a degree in physics gives you much more than an understanding of physics; it gives you a way to look at problems, analyse them and find solutions. These are invaluable skills in a variety of jobs.
So don't worry about it, just find something you like to do. You are still young and can afford to make several more mistakes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> The other option is to stop here and try to find an admittedly enjoyable coding job
>
>
>
About 40% of American physics bachelors degree holders do just that. This is a perfectly fine solution.
>
> but it would still require me months of studying to have a chance in a
> interview.
>
>
>
Well, maybe. Currently, some companies hire coders with zero experience.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: The fact that you chose the theoretical physics rather than experimental physics path will make a transition to engineering less likely. Were you a major in solid state physics, transferring across to things like electronics, materials science, aerodynamics, plasma technology, etc would be a doodle.
Theoretical physics is largely mathematical - yet modelling in various arenas like engineering, finance, social sciences, etc is still a clear possibility for you.
It is a fact - though one many of us regard with unease - that many high degree graduates in sciences go into management consultancy, accounting, MBA, CFA, etc. You even see an odd physics PhD in the diplomatic service, often initially as a science/economics attaché.
I think going into software on the basis of your current skill "marketability" would be crazy. With your profile, they'd put you into some big-data role where your math skills would be in the service of making more money for lazy people by analyzing the online behaviors of ordinary hard-working people. If you are depressed now, where would you be after a couple of years doing something as humanly futile as that ?
But the real question here is why in 5 years you never reflected on at least subjects you like, if not professions you could see yourself in.
It is **your** life. You have to take hold of it. Go off on a solo hike and clear your head for a while.
Then get out into the world beyond college campuses and do *anything* just to make a positive difference - voluntary service overseas, anything to get out of this false comfort zone and tedious predictability of university staging.
If you have some money see if there are any reputable psychometric testing companies near you to see what else you may have a turn for.
But above all else: take some active step yourself.
It's not the degree, it's what you do with it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Since you wrote "**Possibly a coding job (as I said, it's quite enjoyable)**", I suppose that you love coding jobs. You are only 26 years old, and you still have plenty of time to pursue your dream career that you enjoy the most.
Therefore, I would suggest that you try one of these options:
1. **Apply for a job as a programmer in the private sector**
Some companies may hire programmers with STEM backgrounds and do not
necessarily require applicants to have lots of programming experiences.
2. **Study to get a MS degree in CS or in Engineering**
It won't be too difficult as you already get a MS degree in physics and know how to study STEM subjects. With a MS degree in CS, you will be on the right track for the super high-demand jobs in the CS job markets such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning,...
You may need to take some CS undergraduate courses to get up to the
speed before joining the CS program. But, it will not be difficult at all.
3. **Get a certification from a coding bootcamp**
I can't promise this is the best option. But, some times, a coding bootcamp
can be a fast track and give you really practical coding experiences such as building
websites, etc...
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/11
| 853
| 3,569
|
<issue_start>username_0: My situation/timeline is this:
* Submit paper ~ 9 months ago
* 6 months in peer-review, at which point I
sent 2-3 unanswered emails after 4-6 months asking if any update
* No acknowledgement of those emails, but major revision decision
eventually communicated with 4 weeks to do revisions
* Request (and am approved) for an extension
* Reach out to editor asking how best to resubmit revised version (since revision option has since expired through the official submission portal)
* Check-in via email two more times (both the journal <EMAIL> email, and the personal academic email of the Chief Editor), and have now 4 weeks of waiting with fully revised version ready to submit just to receive advice on how to resubmit
I feel I have done all I can. I have been communicating with the Chief Editor, and the Associate Editor who handled the paper is seemingly anonymous so I cannot contact them.
The journal is a small-ish, but reputable journal in the field. Because of it's size, there is just the one Chief Editor, and there are no official admin staff (Assistant Editor I think it is called?) who I can contact at the journal.
I am at a career stage where first-author publications are so important. These delays suck. I'm trying to be respectful but also look out for myself here, but I actually don't know what else to do.
Do any Editors out there who have any experience of handling such a situation from the journal-side have any advice?<issue_comment>username_1: There are a lot of options for reasons of not getting a response: the editor is lazy, sick, overwhelmed, or you have somehow offended them in your communications, or your communications aren't getting through somehow.
As to how to resubmit it if the submission system isn't available, just send it to them directly with a (polite) note.
You can then be patient and wait for things to play out, though I understand your pressures.
Your other option is to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere, though that will just start the process over at a different journal, costing time. You don't need an acknowledgement if you choose that route. A note that you intend to withdraw the paper on (some definite future date) if you don't hear from them by then is sufficient.
For a truly reputable journal, patience is probably your best bet, though you need some assurance that your communications are being received.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You have been sending **a lot** of emails to the editor. Way too many, IMHO. See [this post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like-how-should-i-interpret-a) and also the answers to questions linked there (there are a lot of questions on this site on the question "the status of my paper hasn't changed in the submission system for *N* months, what should I do?" and the answer is almost universally: wait and let the people involved do their work, sending emails is most likely both annoying and won't speed up anything.)
From those that you listed, the only valid reason to send an email I can see (apart from asking for an extension) is one asking how to resubmit. That's a valid question, but you shouldn't bother the (academic) editor with such an organisational / technical question, you should write to the editorial office (that is what you should be looking for, not assistant editor).
Why might the editor not respond? After so many emails, he or she might very well have gotten used to ignoring your emails.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/11
| 486
| 2,088
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it okay to contact authors (in the same research area) who published in a journal to which I submitted lately, in order to get information about the peer-review process, or will this be considered unprofessional and one preferably should ask the editor in chief/ associate editor personally?<issue_comment>username_1: I would only do this if I had an existing relationship with them, even just having met them at a conference. Otherwise it is a bit strange. The editor can probably help you understand things. There is also a canonical question here about journal process that you might find helpful:
[What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? How should I interpret a particular submission status?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/55665/75368)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is a topic one often discusses at coffee meetings with colleagues at conferences, so it's a fair question to ask others. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to ask it of colleagues. Of course, if I got an email from someone I've never heard of about this, I'd probably think that is an odd request.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: What's your motive in asking specific paper authors rather than the editor of the journal in question ?
Surely the editor will have *all* the answers. The authors only usually have a recollection of what they did themselves: this may or may not transfer to your submission. And going to a journal editor in the first place is a very common-sense thing to do for newbee paper submitters.
Asking personally known colleagues about the publishing routine is fine.
Cold-calling unknown authors in your own field is a bad idea. Most will refer you to the journal editor's guidelines, which you should already know. They will find distasteful the idea that someone else may seek an easier passage to publication - and on the back of their hard-earned experience. You would be diminishing your professional standing in the eyes of any stranger you approach on this matter.
Don't do it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/11
| 960
| 3,247
|
<issue_start>username_0: When reading through a preprint article (which are often the most accessible versions of articles), I for various reasons want to determine whether there has been an officially published version of the article: for example for (1) a more official source to cite, (2) a more edited and cleaned up version of the preprint.
Often, I run into difficulties when searching for an officially published version: (1) the title may have changed slightly or dramatically, (2) an additional co-author may have been added, etc.
**Question:** What method should be used to find the (or whether there is a) published version of a preprint. Is the DOI helpful? If so, how is it used?<issue_comment>username_1: This probably depends on the field and the preprint service. For example, medrxiv and biorxiv assign a DOI to the initial preprint and maintain it for subsequent versions. (They also discourage preprint submission to other services.) When you search by DOI or open a preprint link, the service would show a link to the latest version. Shortly after the preprint appears online in a journal, the service will display a link to the publication. In other cases, e.g., personal websites, the authors would hopefully deposit the latest version. Also, Google Scholar usually has all the versions.
An issue that I've had is that preprint title, content, statistical results, etc, can change between versions. So what you refer to in an early version may be different or absent in later versions, particularly in a journal publication with many edits.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You can sometimes find it in the article's metadata (to be accessed via the preprint's DOI).
An example:
* There is this pre-print at *SocArXiv* with the DOI [10.31235/osf.io/umt58](https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/umt58)
* Access the metadata (in CrossRef's API) with the DOI <https://api.crossref.org/works/10.31235/osf.io/umt58>
* Find the field `relation`, then `is-preprint-of`, then `id`, which tells you that the preprint is a preprint of [10.1177/01655515211040654](https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211040654)
Screenshot:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DVDGL.png)
At *SocArXiv*, you can find the same information at the preprint's page in the right margin; here's a screenshot:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbFRy.png)
The same is true with all the other preprint servers at OSF (MetaArXiv, MediArXiv, AfricArXiv, etc.)
At *ArXiv*, you can find the published DOI in the "Related DOI" field; here is an example from <https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07141>:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f5fPZ.png)
Note that this "linking" of preprint DOIs to the peer-reviewed publications' DOIs only works if it is done manually by the authors (or if an automatic metadata extraction, as ArXiv does, succeeded in finding the links); cf. [How to add DOI to the published version of an article in arXiv?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153402/how-to-add-doi-to-the-published-version-of-an-article-in-arxiv).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/11
| 663
| 2,963
|
<issue_start>username_0: What mechanism prevents government organizations from handing out too much money for research during a year with exceptionally good proposals? I'm imagining that people in charge of approving funding go about their business and realize that there's been too many good ideas and they're gonna run out of money before the end of the business cycle if they continue going at this rate, so they dial back and raise standards. However, there should be some ways to quantify this.
Furthermore, they might have to raise standards in an artificial way, creating rejections where the reason is not that there's anything wrong with the proposal, but rather that there's not enough money to go around. In this case, do they write something along the lines of "we couldn't find anything wrong, but money is tight and we received a lot of submissions blah blah blah..." on the rejection letter?<issue_comment>username_1: Not every funding agency does it the same, of course, but the system I am most familiar with is:
1. Rank proposals in order of "best" to "worst".
2. Fund the proposal at the top of the list.
3. Continue until you run out of money.
There are some caveats about determining exactly how much funding to provide a project relative to the amount asked, as there is a trade off between fully funding the best proposals and funding more proposals at a reduced level. In periods of reduced funding, there may be percentage drops applied to all current projects to avoid reducing the number funded (and risking causing some labs to fold permanently).
For NIH, for example, they will tell you what percentile your project is at, and later, whether that will be funded or not. Things remain consistent enough that for all but the borderline cases, you know based on percentile whether or not your grant is likely to be funded. No comparisons are made to past submission cycles.
For what it's worth, the same is done in other areas: graduate student admissions, hires for open jobs, etc. The bound for success is not "meets requirements", the bound for success is "best option above the cut-off". Many qualified applicants are rejected whenever there is high demand for money, jobs, etc.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> realize that there's been too many good ideas and they're gonna run out of money before the end of the business cycle
>
>
>
Most grant programs only fund grants once per budget cycle. They run out of money exactly when they intend to.
There are some exceptions. Funding agencies that have switched to a deadline-free system award grants continuously. They do this because it greatly reduces the number of applications (academics often do not know how to work without deadlines) so it's quite a bit harder to run out of money. There's only a risk of running out of money if all the programs are funded continuously. In my experience, it's only a few, with most being on the annual schedule.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/12
| 664
| 2,941
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my freshman year, I had an academic misconduct issue and received a zero for that assignment as well as a warning on the internal record (normally will not be shown to anyone else). I felt so guilty about this.
Some graduate school applications ask about "*academic misconduct*" (which I will definitely disclose), but some others ask about "*disciplinary issues*" (which my case does not technically count as). So should I disclose it when applications ask for "disciplinary issues"?
The last thing I would ever want is to lie on my application. How bad would this incident be on my application? I have worked extremely hard during the rest of my studies and got good grades, research and work experiences.<issue_comment>username_1: It is very unlikely that the target institution would have access to your data in your current one. So entirely miss the whole thingy. They will assume that you do not have anything black spot, and your way to leave them in this belief, that you ignore the entire topic.
If they directly ask this, then it depends on the question. Probably you will have some frame to interpret the question on the most favorable way (for you). Alternatively, you can think that case is ended now, and they have no really access to your data in another institution, about such a long past thing.
But the most likely outcome is that also they won't ask this.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The first rule is that you need to be honest, not only as a moral imperative, but since the outcome can be severe if you are not and it is discovered.
But you don't need to volunteer information not asked for, especially if it isn't in your best interest to do so. For undergraduate misconduct the university normally handles it and closes the case. You can too, taking it as a learning experience and doing better in future. They keep internal records in the case that you repeat bad behavior, but don't normally disclose it to others - sometimes by law.
If you are asked, then you should answer honestly, but stress that it didn't become a habit and wasn't and won't be repeated. People understand that others (like themselves) aren't perfect but can learn. Few people can compete with the angels.
This, alone, shouldn't have an impact on graduate admissions in most cases, but, since decisions are made by individuals, it is impossible to predict with precision.
---
In an earlier version of the question you asked about admission to some top schools in the US. Your chances there are determined by lots of things, but note that the competition is very fierce at the top level. I recommend, as always, that you make a broad search for a doctoral program so that you aren't closed out completely. Note that if you are rejected by one top program you are probably(?) going to be rejected by other similar programs on the same basis. Shoot for the stars, but settle for the moon.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/12
| 1,631
| 6,701
|
<issue_start>username_0: In German-speaking countries, what is the difference between a *Professor* and an *FH-Professor?*
I have come across both terms and FH-Professors seem to work at universities of applied sciences (FH=UAS; differences to universities see [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/72614/what-is-the-difference-between-hochschule-and-universit%C3%A4t-technische-universi)) but I wonder what the difference in the formal qualification level of the professors is and what the formal requirements are to become one of the two?<issue_comment>username_1: To become a professor in Germany, you need sufficient academic qualification, that is at least a PhD and, in most cases, an additional [habilitation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation), proof of relevant scientific activities trough publications and proof of capability of teaching through previous experience. If a habilitation is necessary is mostly dependent on the area of studies, in more "applied" university subjects like engineering it is sometimes/quite often waived.
To become a professor at the FH (university of applied sciences), you normally don't need a habilition. Until quite recently, you did not even (necessarily) have a docotorate if you had enough "applied knowledge", proven by relevant industry working experience. These days, after complaints from university professors that is is unfair that others can become professors without a PhD, they changed it in most places so that you DO need a doctorate on top of 3-5 years of relevant industry experience, teaching experience and publications.
If you do speak German, have a look at [this list](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Professuren_in_Deutschland) of types of professors in Germany.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Situation in Austria:
**TL;DR**
FH-Professor have fewer scientific publications and they don't need to be in the most prestigious journals (as compared to university professors) but on the contrary management experience in industry is expected (e.g. managing multiple persons at the R&D department of a company for several years). Also the teaching qualification level is usually higher than for University Professors.
**Long version:**
The following criteria apply for a FH-Professor (FHStG):
1. Formal criteria
* At least PhD but ideally Habilitation
* Proof of full-time employment at the UAS for at least 2 years and teaching activities during this time
2. Quality Criteria
* Scientific qualifications: Subject-specific publications, invited lectures, awards, memberships in (inter)national associations, editorial functions, grant, scientific and university management
* Proof of professional qualification: Several years of industry experience, of which usually at least 2 years of non-university management experience. Optional additional qualifications such as e.g. patents
* Proof of didactic qualification e.g. completion of relevant university didactic training seminars
* Proof of international experience in teaching and/or research (e.g. research stay abroad)
The following criteria apply for a University Professor (UG):
* Subject specific PhD or an equivalent foreign university degree (*Habilitation is NOT a criterium anymore even though the below mentioned scientific qualifications usually need to exceed those of the Habilitation anyway*)
* Outstanding scientific qualification in the field
* Successful and continuous acquisition of competitive third-party funds
* Academic leadership and management experience, including gender and diversity competence
* Educational and didactic qualification
* International work experienc
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Practical differences:
* A FH Professor has to teach much more. And he needs on average much
more applied knowledge and expertise and often worked some years after or
during his PhD in industry.
* Professor is a title in Germany, no grade. You don't need under all
circumstances a PhD or Habilitation to become Professor, but at
Universities Habilitation or Junior-Professorship is mostly the
rule/required after PhD vs. FH.
* FHs can be better equipped with hardware and infrastructure than universities in the same state for similar study courses. To make it more complicated Germany also has TU's (technical universities)
* Fundamental research is not the goal of FHs and graduating PhDs, so if you have to decide to become Uni or FH-Professor for 20-30 years there are quite different and distinctive criterions to choose imho
In common:
* Both are public servants and get around 2/3 of their salary after
retirement as a pension.
So much of the formal issues and legals duties and rights can vary by local state laws in Germany
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There are several differences:
* An FH professor is considered to have a full-time teaching position and as such is *required* to teach 16-18 hours per work week (differs from state to state). In contrast, a university professor is only required to teach 8-9 hours per work week.
* The flip side is that each university professor has a *mandate* to conduct research in his field ("Forschungsauftrag"). While there is no formal test whether a professor indeed conducts research during the work time that he's not teaching it will look bad if he doesn't. In contrast, in an FH the mandate to conduct research applies only to whole departments, not to individuals. Individual professors may or may not conduct research, and due to their teaching work load if they want to conduct research they often have to apply to to be temporarily released from (part of) their teaching requirements ("Forschungsfreisemester").
* University professors usually have a permanent budget to employ zero to four (as negotiated in the professor's employment contract) full-time research assistants ("Haushaltsstellen"). For FH professors there's no such budget. Both can apply for third-party research grants to hire additional research assistants.
* FH professors are always at the formal job grade W2. University professors start at either job grade W1 (while being employed as a junior professor) or W2 (when in possession of a *venia legendi* either through a prior successful junior professorship or through "habilitation") and can be "promoted" to W2 and finally W3 - with significant salary increases. Promotion is usually not a university-internal process though, but rather happens either by accepting a higher-grade professor position at a different university, or as a counter-offer ("Bleibeverhandlung") from the professor's current university after having received a binding offer from a different university.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/12
| 836
| 3,746
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted a journal paper in a reputed journal. It says on their website that the normal response time is 12 weeks. I have seen in other websites that the response time from this particular journal is around 72 days. It is been 14 weeks almost and I haven't received a decision yet. Does it mean that the paper is bad in terms of content (I believe not!)?
Or, does this mean that the reviewers find it hard to go through everything? Or, there is no relation at all.<issue_comment>username_1: Let me suggest that if there is a relationship then it is both weak and somewhat chaotic with many outliers. Especially bad papers may be easy to weed out. Especially good (essential) papers may be very hard to verify. It took a long time for Einstein's special relativity paper of 1905 to be accepted generally.
One reason why it probably means little in a specific case is the wide variability of the time available for reviewers. They have their own work and it has a higher priority than the reviews they've agreed to do. They might also want to seek some advice from colleagues on a good paper and kick ideas around for a bit. Some math papers are hard if the proofs are intricate. Only especially trivial results are likely to get a quick analysis (and likely rejection).
There are lots of reasons for delay, even including inefficient process at the journal itself. It is most likely to mean *nothing essential* about the quality of the paper.
A two week "delay" beyond "typical" is but an instant of time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: From more than a decade of editorial experience: There is no correlation. You just have to be patient, but while you are patient, there is nothing you can infer from the amount of time it takes for the paper to go through the process.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I had a previous experience with a very delayed response time from a reputable journal. I submitted my manuscript for review and received feedback nine months later! This was significantly longer than the reported average response time for the journal, although I heard from a colleague that they experienced a similar delay at this journal. My paper was accepted with minor revisions, and moved forward to publication quickly. I was told that the delay was related to difficulties finding reviewers who could complete the review within the required timeframe, an issue which is apparently becoming more common. In any case, I would not worry that the response time is a reflection on the quality of your work!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In general I will agree with the other answers that there is little correlation between paper quality and review time, once you have made it past editorial rejection. At that point, the dominant factor in time is the arbitrariness of peer reviewer responsiveness and editorial distraction, since reviewing papers is a lower-priority task for most active researchers.
In my experience as an editor, however, there is one class of manuscript that does tend to take unusually long to get responses on: not-very-good presentations of potentially interesting work.
If the work was presented well, it would be easy to provide a review based on quality. If the presentation very bad, then it would be easy to reject on the basis of presentation. In between, however, is an [uncanny valley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) filled with work that is slow and painful to review.
Unless you are getting complaints about confusing presentation from your reviewers, however, you shouldn't guess that your work is in the uncanny valley. Instead, you should assume that you're just experiencing the arbitrariness of reviewing time.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/12
| 4,280
| 17,986
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am having a hard time deciding what to do or feel so I wanted to ask this question here.
For background, I am a PhD student and am doing pretty well overall. I also happen to have a fellowship that covers my tuition and stipend for the next two years. At this point, I have a very clear and novel research agenda that I will most likely work on for the rest of my career and that I have presented at different venues.
My advisor has recently watched a talk I gave and told me that she would like me to write a grant proposal based on the ideas in my talk. Now, I feel uncomfortable doing this because I feel like she had absolutely zero contribution in the development of any of these ideas in this talk, and, if she gets the grant based on these ideas, I would lose "authority" over my own research agenda.
During my time in the Ph.D., my advisor has contributed very little intellectually to my work, (although I admit he has been a great editor). When it came to publications, I never had an issue regarding this because I would always be the first author, and it was clear that I was the expert on the topic (giving talks, etc...). However, if I understand correctly this grant proposal will only have his name on it, and it would not mention that the ideas developed in the grant belong to me (other than references to our past work).
Am I right to worry? What can I do?<issue_comment>username_1: An idea can be put down to a A4 page. Writing a superb 20-50 page grant proposal, project and financial plan is something completely different. Managing a project successfully is another different career step.
What you have to decide is not who had the idea or is the "owner", but what is the likelihood to get funding for it without your advisor and that someone else doesn't have the same idea at another place/how long you can save it up.
This is a poker game. You know what professional poker players do? They invest in other poker players (to get some ratio of their win) even playing the same tournament as their opponents to maximize their winning chances.
I was also thinking like you once. Maybe there are branches and periods within a research career within you can work and manage a project/idea/proposal completely on your own. But this cannot stay your modus operandi to become professor and stay profressor. You have to share ideas and success, delegate responsibilities, divide labour to stay successful.
If you idea is more than an idea, then patent it. Universities often ask their coworkers to come with patent-ready ideas to their patent departments. Then it will also be clear who had which share % developing the idea.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Here are two simple reasons why you should encourage your advisor to write the research grant with your idea:
1. In your own words:
>
> I admit she has been a great editor
>
>
>
Editing a scientific manuscript seems like a trivial thing, but depending on the context sometimes it is the task that requires the most effort. This is not something that you can ignore.
2. Your advisor asking you to write a grant proposal means that she finds your ideas valuable enough to convince a funding source.
Since you are a member of the project, this is a great opportunity for you. At the end of the day, the funds will not be spent on your advisor's personal purchases. It will be your travel money, conference registration fee, research visit compensation, etc.
I do not believe that the ambition of getting the credit that you think you deserve is a feasible goal here. In the best case, she will say "OK then, I won't write a grant based on your idea." And then what? You are back to square one.
In the future, you will have many brilliant ideas, and most of them will be way better compared to the one that you have today. So, the best course for you (I think) is writing the proposal, and enjoying the grant both by putting an item in your CV and spending the money to travel around.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: In the short-term: a grant may expose *your* idea to third party, so you may loose some ownership on it. However, if you published the idea, there is no doubt about the ownership.
>
> it would not mention that the ideas developed in the grant belong to
> me (other than references to our past work).
>
>
>
A grant is a funding request. You have to write it based on solid proof that what you plan to do will work, so what you downplay as "references to our past work" is of the uttermost importance. The rest of the grant (PI, name of the person proposing the grant, etc) is 20% politics and 80% bureaucracy.
So publish as much as you can, but if your advisor is involving you in grants' writing it will be a good learning experience (unfortunately, even if your idea is good to guarantee you a career in the future, you will have to write more and more grants...)
In the long-term: I urge you to consider you are among peers[1]. You may have had a great idea, and you may have a plan for the future, since you state you have
>
> a very clear and novel research agenda that I will most likely work
> on for the rest of my career and that I have presented at different
> venues.
>
>
>
Be realistic, there are many good ideas out there, not all of them get the required fundings. Additionally, if you were to have the absolute scientific breakthrough idea in your topic, you would be busy managing your own funds, not asking *how to proceed* to random strangers on the internet.
Being ambitious and knowing the own capabilities and value is good. But what is coming out from your writing/question is the usual self-entitled behavior of "succesful" PhD students. I am not saying you will not have a successful career, I hope you will have one.
What I want to stress is that if it will happen only because of your merits and ideas ... it will only happen this way in your head, because your head will trick you in ignoring all the support you received and that you will be given, from your current and future peers (see your curent advisor doing a great job, supporting and setting you free to pursue your ideas).
[1] if you feel you are significantly smarter than your peers ...
```
A man is driving down a highway when he hears a newsflash:
"A warning to all drivers: We've just heard that a vehicle is driving down the highway in the wrong direction!"
"What do you mean, 'a vehicle'? grumbles the driver. "There's hundreds of them!"
```
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Kick for touch - and make it a Percy Montgomery !
Say you have to finish your PhD now - you must focus on that to the exclusion of all else.
After that you have to defend the thesis, apply for publication and get some well-earned R & R back home.
Then is the time to look at looking for funding for the idea you've had.
Though in the meantime you can look at who else in the country is doing similar research, whether you can work with them and so on . . .
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: I understand your concern, but you have a couple of things backwards.
While, in theory, when it comes to papers, you could write these yourself and you don't need your supervisor\*, when it comes to grants, however, it's a completely different story. I'm speaking from a UK perspective and terminology here, but I assume similar practices apply elsewhere.
Unfortunately, in practical terms, there is absolutely no way for you to apply for a traditional grant as a PI at your stage, and are unlikely to for a long time. This is because funding bodies tend to have strict eligibility criteria, of which the most common is "permanent academic position in a recognised higher institution", closely followed by the often unstated criterion "demonstrates experience and an established presence in the field, and is the most suitable permanent post academic to lead this particular proposal"
In other words, it is probably not possible for you to be writing a grant at this stage. Which means, your best bet of actually *continuing* this line of research that you're banking the rest of your entire career on, may in fact well be to convince someone grantworthy to apply for a grant on the basis of your ideas, for you to continue working with them. Otherwise, once you're out of the phd and looking for a job, your most likely route is that you'll have to join a project based on a grant that someone else proposed, which is unlikely to be your particular niche topic that you so love. And this doesn't even address the whole "even if you apply for a grant yourself to resurrect this line of research once you've made permanent, say, 7 years down the line, this research may no longer be grantable, based on current trends and buzzwords".
Having said that, there are ways for you to be an official contributor on the grant proposal, rather than simply be a person that your PI happens to hire with the grant money. Many funding bodies allow the concept of a "named researcher" on the grant. This is typically someone who is at a stage in their career that is ineligible to apply for the grant per se, but it is understood that they are an integral part of the proposal (typically understood to mean the project is largely their baby and they will be the ones pouring all the work on it), and is therefore named on the grant. This is great for your CV, because it shows you have experience submitting grants and getting funding. Plus it saves the university time and money because they won't have to go through the hiring process.
So if I were you, not only would I encourage your advisor to write the grant, but I would try to find out if you can be a named researcher on the grant and continue your research with them in that capacity.
Ok, I am lying a bit, because there is in fact another, more straightforward way to go about this after your phd, which is to apply for a postdoctoral fellowship. This is an award that allows you to work as a postdoc for a few years working alone on your own research. But at the end of the day, these grants are far rarer than traditional grants (which are already in high competition), and are thus even more competitive than normal grants, are much less flexible (e.g. in terms of creating a partnership), and still require finding an interested supervisor to supervise the work. If you do get one of these, it may be seen more favourably than a named researcher route (in that you won such a grant directly), I'm not too sure. But in reality, if you are a named researcher on a grant, this is already great, much easier, and will still allow you to control and continue your research.
These are all personal opinions, and I'm also still learning the ropes and shortcuts of the system, so I may be wrong on a couple of points. But more or less this has been my experience. Happy to be corrected in the comments below. Hope it helps.
PS. The cutting edge novel stuff I was working on during my PhD that I thought would change the world and I was ready to base my entire career on? Haven't managed to touch that in 7 years now. Now that I'm getting a permanent post I may go back to it, but I've already got other projects in my hands already, which are far more practical from a funding point of view.
---
\* Though in practice, even here, I think you're probably underestimating the impact that your supervisor will have had, both in terms of what they contributed to the research in indirect terms, as well as how the impact of the paper may have changed from the network effect of having their name on it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: (Moved from comment to answer)
I am just a PhD student myself (so take this with a grain of salt) but I don't think one should conflate a grant proposal with a publication. Also, isn't it likely that a successful grant application would bring more funding to the research group, thereby benefiting you? Finally, I would think that one needs to trust their PhD advisor's judgment on these kinds of things, otherwise your degree may be a rocky road.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: (Moved from comment to answer)
I see two major concerns from your side. 1. You are afraid that you will "loss the authority". 2. You are afraid that you cannot be one of the authors of the application.
For 1: I am not sure what do you mean by "authority". Do you mean that you used to be the single author in these papers, and now you have to share authorship?
For 2:
I personally think you can be one of the listed coauthor of the grant application. I personally know quite a few PhD candidates coauthoring grant application with professors across different institute (with or without the involvement of their advisor). So I am not sure if there is rule prohibiting students to be listed as coauthors.
PS: Besides proof-reading, I think there are some other value your advisor might be able to give you. For an incomplete list:
1. Share his network capital
2. Identify good citations and potential referees
3. Share the skills in communication with editors and other senior academics
4. Identify the "taste" of editors and potential referees
5. Share his experience in paper submission and grant application
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I feel your pain. I have had to be satisfied with insufficient credit a few times and have even once had an entire final form paper outright stolen from me by researchers higher up the food chain. It happens. Don't listen to anyone who says it doesn't.
But you have to consider your position. The awarding of grants is a notoriously subjective process. (WHAT??? SUBJECTIVITY in SCIENCE??? Surely you jest! Ummm ... no.) Granting agencies will look at a proposal from an established researcher much more seriously than they will from a newbie, even a potentially talented newbie. I remember speaking with a someone who sat on such boards from time to time who said, "Seriously, I just don't have time to read these proposals. Last month I granted money to this one proposal just because I like the guy!" Now, don't blow a gasket; she went on to say, "Of course, one of the reasons I like the guy is that he does good work!" Point being, if your grant -- a first time effort -- had come across her desk in a stack of 10 others when she was already up to her nose in her own work, you wouldn't stand a chance.
In short, you need to ask yourself if you can get this funded without your advisor's help.
Also, for my money, whose name gets put on the papers that come out of the research will be more far more important than who is the lead on the grant. If your advisor is a decent person (Beware! Not all of them are!) she will put you as first author on the papers, as long as you actually do the work.
One last thing: It's not necessarily a binary thing; you don't necessarily have to tell her all or nothing. You don't have to tell your advisor your every thought. You can be cagey. There may be ways to keep the good stuff under wraps until you are ready to reveal it in a way that mark it as unmistakably yours. (Does your research group publish pre-prints, for instance?) It can be miserable having to go through life thinking like that, but sometimes that's what you have to do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: >
> At this point, I have a very clear and novel research agenda that I will most likely work on for the rest of my career and that I have presented at different venues... My advisor has recently watched a talk I gave and told me that she would like me to write a grant proposal based on the ideas in my talk...
>
>
>
You are very worried that, by winning this grant, your advisor will somehow "scoop" all credit for the research agenda you've identified... but you seem completely indifferent to the notion that audience members from any of those multiple other venues (or readers of your first-author publications) might just as easily scoop you by writing their own grants.
Even if it plays out exactly as you most fear, working with your advisor on this will lead to funding and more publications (presumably where you are still first-author); whereas some other group beating you both to the punch might lead to only a couple citations or footnotes.
---
What your advisor is offering here is a way for you to start the ball rolling on your research agenda at a very early stage in your career. Will this lead to some future confusion about "priority"? Maybe, maybe not. It sounds like you've given plenty of talks on the subject and have a good number of first-author publications under your belt so I wouldn't be too worried about one grant tipping the scales (particularly not if this grant leads to more publications where you are once again first-author).
---
Also, since we are talking about a *"research agenda that I will most likely work on for the rest of my career"* who's to say that this one grant proposal must give away the entire plot? Presumably, if this research territory is unexplored enough to build an entire career out of it, then some first exploratory forays can likely be packaged as post-doc projects, PhD theses, or even MS theses. Your advisor's editorial/administrative experience should actually be invaluable here - both in terms of knowing the project scopes most likely to be funded, as well as knowing how to maximize the amount of strong publications from a project of a given size.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: A couple of years ago I took a "Researcher Management and Leadership Training" Coursera course from the University of Colorado. In it they said that a good advisor will have you write a grant with them as the PI, and commit that if they get the grant and you go off to a faculty position somewhere else, you can take some of the money. This way, when you are on the job market you have a little pot of money to make yourself more attractive to potential employers. See if your advisor will do something like that.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/13
| 4,478
| 18,410
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are six types of higher educational institutions in the US according to [this source](https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php)
1. Doctoral Universities (R1, R2, D/PU)
2. Master's Colleges and Universities (M1, M2, M3)
3. Baccalaureate Colleges (Arts & Sciences Focus, Diverse Fields)
4. Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges
5. Associate's Colleges
6. Special Focus Institutions (2 years, 4 years)
7. Tribal Colleges
I am interested in knowing the general consensus, if any, of the recruitment criteria, based on the number of SCI papers published, of assistant professors among the top two types of institutes: Doctoral and masters.
I used to believe that recruitment, in general, doesn't depend on the number of SCI journals published and depends on experience(in years), projects handled, quality of papers published (if any), and quality of the PhD thesis, etc., I use to think that the quality of paper(s) matters more to the recruitment process compared to the number of papers. But I recently read reasons for rejection, citing that applicants have *less than 4 SCI journals*. You can check the [advertisement](https://www.iiitdmj.ac.in/jobs/download/Faculty/Assistant%20Professor%20advt%2003-2020.pdf) and [results](https://www.iiitdmj.ac.in/downloads/CSElevel11.pdf#page=2). There can be many examples like this. So, I am wondering whether the same with the top two types of institutes in the US.
Are there any such restrictions in the top two types of universities in the US? Do the top two types of universities *generally* reject the applicants citing the lack of such a minimum/ threshold number of SCI papers?
---
Those unaware of SCI/SCIE standards can read from [here](https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/webofscience-scie/).<issue_comment>username_1: An idea can be put down to a A4 page. Writing a superb 20-50 page grant proposal, project and financial plan is something completely different. Managing a project successfully is another different career step.
What you have to decide is not who had the idea or is the "owner", but what is the likelihood to get funding for it without your advisor and that someone else doesn't have the same idea at another place/how long you can save it up.
This is a poker game. You know what professional poker players do? They invest in other poker players (to get some ratio of their win) even playing the same tournament as their opponents to maximize their winning chances.
I was also thinking like you once. Maybe there are branches and periods within a research career within you can work and manage a project/idea/proposal completely on your own. But this cannot stay your modus operandi to become professor and stay profressor. You have to share ideas and success, delegate responsibilities, divide labour to stay successful.
If you idea is more than an idea, then patent it. Universities often ask their coworkers to come with patent-ready ideas to their patent departments. Then it will also be clear who had which share % developing the idea.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Here are two simple reasons why you should encourage your advisor to write the research grant with your idea:
1. In your own words:
>
> I admit she has been a great editor
>
>
>
Editing a scientific manuscript seems like a trivial thing, but depending on the context sometimes it is the task that requires the most effort. This is not something that you can ignore.
2. Your advisor asking you to write a grant proposal means that she finds your ideas valuable enough to convince a funding source.
Since you are a member of the project, this is a great opportunity for you. At the end of the day, the funds will not be spent on your advisor's personal purchases. It will be your travel money, conference registration fee, research visit compensation, etc.
I do not believe that the ambition of getting the credit that you think you deserve is a feasible goal here. In the best case, she will say "OK then, I won't write a grant based on your idea." And then what? You are back to square one.
In the future, you will have many brilliant ideas, and most of them will be way better compared to the one that you have today. So, the best course for you (I think) is writing the proposal, and enjoying the grant both by putting an item in your CV and spending the money to travel around.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: In the short-term: a grant may expose *your* idea to third party, so you may loose some ownership on it. However, if you published the idea, there is no doubt about the ownership.
>
> it would not mention that the ideas developed in the grant belong to
> me (other than references to our past work).
>
>
>
A grant is a funding request. You have to write it based on solid proof that what you plan to do will work, so what you downplay as "references to our past work" is of the uttermost importance. The rest of the grant (PI, name of the person proposing the grant, etc) is 20% politics and 80% bureaucracy.
So publish as much as you can, but if your advisor is involving you in grants' writing it will be a good learning experience (unfortunately, even if your idea is good to guarantee you a career in the future, you will have to write more and more grants...)
In the long-term: I urge you to consider you are among peers[1]. You may have had a great idea, and you may have a plan for the future, since you state you have
>
> a very clear and novel research agenda that I will most likely work
> on for the rest of my career and that I have presented at different
> venues.
>
>
>
Be realistic, there are many good ideas out there, not all of them get the required fundings. Additionally, if you were to have the absolute scientific breakthrough idea in your topic, you would be busy managing your own funds, not asking *how to proceed* to random strangers on the internet.
Being ambitious and knowing the own capabilities and value is good. But what is coming out from your writing/question is the usual self-entitled behavior of "succesful" PhD students. I am not saying you will not have a successful career, I hope you will have one.
What I want to stress is that if it will happen only because of your merits and ideas ... it will only happen this way in your head, because your head will trick you in ignoring all the support you received and that you will be given, from your current and future peers (see your curent advisor doing a great job, supporting and setting you free to pursue your ideas).
[1] if you feel you are significantly smarter than your peers ...
```
A man is driving down a highway when he hears a newsflash:
"A warning to all drivers: We've just heard that a vehicle is driving down the highway in the wrong direction!"
"What do you mean, 'a vehicle'? grumbles the driver. "There's hundreds of them!"
```
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Kick for touch - and make it a Percy Montgomery !
Say you have to finish your PhD now - you must focus on that to the exclusion of all else.
After that you have to defend the thesis, apply for publication and get some well-earned R & R back home.
Then is the time to look at looking for funding for the idea you've had.
Though in the meantime you can look at who else in the country is doing similar research, whether you can work with them and so on . . .
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: I understand your concern, but you have a couple of things backwards.
While, in theory, when it comes to papers, you could write these yourself and you don't need your supervisor\*, when it comes to grants, however, it's a completely different story. I'm speaking from a UK perspective and terminology here, but I assume similar practices apply elsewhere.
Unfortunately, in practical terms, there is absolutely no way for you to apply for a traditional grant as a PI at your stage, and are unlikely to for a long time. This is because funding bodies tend to have strict eligibility criteria, of which the most common is "permanent academic position in a recognised higher institution", closely followed by the often unstated criterion "demonstrates experience and an established presence in the field, and is the most suitable permanent post academic to lead this particular proposal"
In other words, it is probably not possible for you to be writing a grant at this stage. Which means, your best bet of actually *continuing* this line of research that you're banking the rest of your entire career on, may in fact well be to convince someone grantworthy to apply for a grant on the basis of your ideas, for you to continue working with them. Otherwise, once you're out of the phd and looking for a job, your most likely route is that you'll have to join a project based on a grant that someone else proposed, which is unlikely to be your particular niche topic that you so love. And this doesn't even address the whole "even if you apply for a grant yourself to resurrect this line of research once you've made permanent, say, 7 years down the line, this research may no longer be grantable, based on current trends and buzzwords".
Having said that, there are ways for you to be an official contributor on the grant proposal, rather than simply be a person that your PI happens to hire with the grant money. Many funding bodies allow the concept of a "named researcher" on the grant. This is typically someone who is at a stage in their career that is ineligible to apply for the grant per se, but it is understood that they are an integral part of the proposal (typically understood to mean the project is largely their baby and they will be the ones pouring all the work on it), and is therefore named on the grant. This is great for your CV, because it shows you have experience submitting grants and getting funding. Plus it saves the university time and money because they won't have to go through the hiring process.
So if I were you, not only would I encourage your advisor to write the grant, but I would try to find out if you can be a named researcher on the grant and continue your research with them in that capacity.
Ok, I am lying a bit, because there is in fact another, more straightforward way to go about this after your phd, which is to apply for a postdoctoral fellowship. This is an award that allows you to work as a postdoc for a few years working alone on your own research. But at the end of the day, these grants are far rarer than traditional grants (which are already in high competition), and are thus even more competitive than normal grants, are much less flexible (e.g. in terms of creating a partnership), and still require finding an interested supervisor to supervise the work. If you do get one of these, it may be seen more favourably than a named researcher route (in that you won such a grant directly), I'm not too sure. But in reality, if you are a named researcher on a grant, this is already great, much easier, and will still allow you to control and continue your research.
These are all personal opinions, and I'm also still learning the ropes and shortcuts of the system, so I may be wrong on a couple of points. But more or less this has been my experience. Happy to be corrected in the comments below. Hope it helps.
PS. The cutting edge novel stuff I was working on during my PhD that I thought would change the world and I was ready to base my entire career on? Haven't managed to touch that in 7 years now. Now that I'm getting a permanent post I may go back to it, but I've already got other projects in my hands already, which are far more practical from a funding point of view.
---
\* Though in practice, even here, I think you're probably underestimating the impact that your supervisor will have had, both in terms of what they contributed to the research in indirect terms, as well as how the impact of the paper may have changed from the network effect of having their name on it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: (Moved from comment to answer)
I am just a PhD student myself (so take this with a grain of salt) but I don't think one should conflate a grant proposal with a publication. Also, isn't it likely that a successful grant application would bring more funding to the research group, thereby benefiting you? Finally, I would think that one needs to trust their PhD advisor's judgment on these kinds of things, otherwise your degree may be a rocky road.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: (Moved from comment to answer)
I see two major concerns from your side. 1. You are afraid that you will "loss the authority". 2. You are afraid that you cannot be one of the authors of the application.
For 1: I am not sure what do you mean by "authority". Do you mean that you used to be the single author in these papers, and now you have to share authorship?
For 2:
I personally think you can be one of the listed coauthor of the grant application. I personally know quite a few PhD candidates coauthoring grant application with professors across different institute (with or without the involvement of their advisor). So I am not sure if there is rule prohibiting students to be listed as coauthors.
PS: Besides proof-reading, I think there are some other value your advisor might be able to give you. For an incomplete list:
1. Share his network capital
2. Identify good citations and potential referees
3. Share the skills in communication with editors and other senior academics
4. Identify the "taste" of editors and potential referees
5. Share his experience in paper submission and grant application
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I feel your pain. I have had to be satisfied with insufficient credit a few times and have even once had an entire final form paper outright stolen from me by researchers higher up the food chain. It happens. Don't listen to anyone who says it doesn't.
But you have to consider your position. The awarding of grants is a notoriously subjective process. (WHAT??? SUBJECTIVITY in SCIENCE??? Surely you jest! Ummm ... no.) Granting agencies will look at a proposal from an established researcher much more seriously than they will from a newbie, even a potentially talented newbie. I remember speaking with a someone who sat on such boards from time to time who said, "Seriously, I just don't have time to read these proposals. Last month I granted money to this one proposal just because I like the guy!" Now, don't blow a gasket; she went on to say, "Of course, one of the reasons I like the guy is that he does good work!" Point being, if your grant -- a first time effort -- had come across her desk in a stack of 10 others when she was already up to her nose in her own work, you wouldn't stand a chance.
In short, you need to ask yourself if you can get this funded without your advisor's help.
Also, for my money, whose name gets put on the papers that come out of the research will be more far more important than who is the lead on the grant. If your advisor is a decent person (Beware! Not all of them are!) she will put you as first author on the papers, as long as you actually do the work.
One last thing: It's not necessarily a binary thing; you don't necessarily have to tell her all or nothing. You don't have to tell your advisor your every thought. You can be cagey. There may be ways to keep the good stuff under wraps until you are ready to reveal it in a way that mark it as unmistakably yours. (Does your research group publish pre-prints, for instance?) It can be miserable having to go through life thinking like that, but sometimes that's what you have to do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: >
> At this point, I have a very clear and novel research agenda that I will most likely work on for the rest of my career and that I have presented at different venues... My advisor has recently watched a talk I gave and told me that she would like me to write a grant proposal based on the ideas in my talk...
>
>
>
You are very worried that, by winning this grant, your advisor will somehow "scoop" all credit for the research agenda you've identified... but you seem completely indifferent to the notion that audience members from any of those multiple other venues (or readers of your first-author publications) might just as easily scoop you by writing their own grants.
Even if it plays out exactly as you most fear, working with your advisor on this will lead to funding and more publications (presumably where you are still first-author); whereas some other group beating you both to the punch might lead to only a couple citations or footnotes.
---
What your advisor is offering here is a way for you to start the ball rolling on your research agenda at a very early stage in your career. Will this lead to some future confusion about "priority"? Maybe, maybe not. It sounds like you've given plenty of talks on the subject and have a good number of first-author publications under your belt so I wouldn't be too worried about one grant tipping the scales (particularly not if this grant leads to more publications where you are once again first-author).
---
Also, since we are talking about a *"research agenda that I will most likely work on for the rest of my career"* who's to say that this one grant proposal must give away the entire plot? Presumably, if this research territory is unexplored enough to build an entire career out of it, then some first exploratory forays can likely be packaged as post-doc projects, PhD theses, or even MS theses. Your advisor's editorial/administrative experience should actually be invaluable here - both in terms of knowing the project scopes most likely to be funded, as well as knowing how to maximize the amount of strong publications from a project of a given size.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: A couple of years ago I took a "Researcher Management and Leadership Training" Coursera course from the University of Colorado. In it they said that a good advisor will have you write a grant with them as the PI, and commit that if they get the grant and you go off to a faculty position somewhere else, you can take some of the money. This way, when you are on the job market you have a little pot of money to make yourself more attractive to potential employers. See if your advisor will do something like that.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/13
| 433
| 1,938
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a second year architecture student at the University of Aleppo. I will start the third year soon. I decided to continue studying abroad, so my question is: can I continue my studies in Germany or Sweden or do I have start from the beginning? Will the courses I already took be counted towards my degree or not?<issue_comment>username_1: I will try to give a general answer for Germany:
In Germany, if you apply to a university you have to disclose previous study experience, the tests you took and passed/failed and any grades you have achieved. That is because you are not allowed to retake the same test more than three times (e.g. if you failed at linear algebra 3 times, you cannot study any subject that has this course as a requirement). If the studies were done abroad (as in your case) and the documents are not in german (english might be acceptable, too), you probably will have to provide a transcript.
Usually, the administration people evaluate your previous courses and see if any of them can be counted towards the subject you are planning to apply for. Depending on how much the curriculums overlap, you might be placed into a higher semester instead of the first. But this decision is made on a university level, one uni might agree to put you in third semester, while another says you have to start from the beginning or in the second semester.
Contact the universities that you would prefer to study at and inquire there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Do note that architecture is highly sought-after and each university has its own requirements for admission that may include portfolios or motivational letters or tests. You will also need German at level C1. And they may have different deadlines than other programs. (We have an international student trying to get into a Master's program staying with us in Germany, what a nightmare all the different rules are!)
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/13
| 216
| 874
|
<issue_start>username_0: When directly citing a heading of a source - such as "Nature of services" - do you keep the capitalization (as just presented) or do it as the following with squared brackets, stating "[n]ature of services"?
PS: Original source is -> Nature of services<issue_comment>username_1: Generally, a quote should be exact, but for a snippet, as in your example, a modification is probably ok, especially since it is specifically noted that it has been modified.
Clarity is the most important thing.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: "*[n]ature of services*" is a suitable direct citation.
The `[]` indicate that you are repurposing the original to suit the flow of your sentence/paragraph.
AFAIK, it's not overly frowned at in law, humanities, information systems. However, some universities or journals might request you do otherwise.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/13
| 845
| 3,685
|
<issue_start>username_0: I think the editor's generic decision letter will be about one page or less. However, I received an editor's decision letter that is longer than two pages, single-space, with small fonts and small margins. The character count is more than some typical referee's letters (is this usual?). The editor also says that he carefully read the paper, so I assume he invested a lot of time.
In this scenario, I appreciate his efforts in commenting on my paper, so I think it is good courtesy to express my gratitude to him and possibly ask him if he is willing to discuss more on this topic1. I am not sure if my reply will be considered normal or unusual.
---
1Just a short question on how to organize/further improve the paper.<issue_comment>username_1: It's fine to express gratitude with a *brief* thank you, calling out the specific thing you are thanking for (the time taken to write a detailed response), and mentioning the benefit to you (for example, that it will greatly improve your next submission).
If you include an ask for more of their time to discuss as part of your "thank you", it likely won't come across as a show of appreciation but rather as part of begging for something you want. If the thing you want to express is true gratitude, leave any additional requests out of it. It's not the editor's job to help you improve your paper - take what they've given you and use it. Consult with your colleagues and mentors about what to do with the paper if you need more advice.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You are correct in assuming the editor's response is usually short. The fact that the editor clogged the space they had to provide you a feedback shows that they are willing to help and they went way farther than one would expect.
So a thank you is the minimum.
Regarding asking them additional feedback, the editor went already very far with such a dense feedback.
And the feedback is on a rejected paper. It looks like your paper needs a lot of work, given the rejection and the long response from the editor. Asking a short question on how to organize/further improve the paper is most likely useless, since this question is to be solved after carefully considering how to react to the rejection (resubmit here? change journal? do additional research?).
The editor showed they are willing to help a lot, so you may expect they will answer the *short* question. However, it would be a waste of time if you ask a *short* question. Even if they will feel the need of answering your *short* question, you will be wasting your and someone else time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Sometimes the polite thing to do is not necessarily the usual thing to do, or precisely **not** the usual thing to do.
Generally speaking, it is a classic scholar tradition of thanking for criticism not only because of politeness, but also because of how modern scientific institutions work: you acknowledge the value of your peers' input in your work and it being embedded in a greater system.
Going on a bit of a tangent here, but I personally always state my name when asking questions in an academic setting, sometimes even against the rules of a conference, as it stems from my belief that it is proper etiquette to by default let the person you ask questions to know who is asking them (at least in the context of formal setting). My point here is that you always operate on more than one level of etiquette: even if it's not defined in editor-author relationship, it is embedded in a broader system, hence nobody would accuse you of insanity if you thanked for it (which I personally strongly encourage).
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/14
| 6,560
| 27,322
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am 2 1/2 years in a a part time PhD and really struggling to know where to start with the writing up phase. I have enough research, although this is obviously subject to change, but really don't know where to start...it feels completely overwhelming. Additionally I had to change supervisor recently and my new one is very hands off and always too busy helping people get through their submissions. I am considering that I am not independent enough but I also feel very isolated and unsupported. I have Read many things on "how to write a thesis" but they have not been very useful to me, this may be because my subject areas are cross disciplinary art/science/humanities? Any help or advice gratefully received...<issue_comment>username_1: It is always a good idea to start at the beginning, that is the title and the table of contents. This should give you a pretty good idea of what you want to say. Papers you have written can often be added as separate chapters without excessive massaging.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm in a similar position - about to start writing just less than 6 months before funding runs out. I guess the advice would differ depending on your discipline, the expectations from your adviser or institution, your personality and preferences.
Things that might work:
* Have a discussion with your adviser and set a deadline for handing something in, e.g. a particular chapter. Having this commitment might help to focus the mind and get something down, even if it's not great. Then you review and re-visit the strategy from there.
* Work top-down. What is the overall story or set of contributions? How will you develop these through your dissertation? As username_1 says, you could literally start out by putting section titles in and seeing the table of contents grow into a structure that makes sense. Then you'd break it down into subsections, figures, tables, case-studies etc.
* Work bottom-up. Maybe you've written a conference paper, or produced a particularly interesting result, or you have some notes about a paper you've reviwed and used which could form one subsection of your lit review. Get these into a document and be prepared to re-write, chop, re-order. Having something there feels like an achievement and you can keep throwing a few building blocks in there until you step back and start thinking a bit more about the big picture.
* Join a writing group. Many universities have a zoom meeting (or a physical room) set up for 2-3 hrs on a weekly basis where people commit to come and work quietly on a defined writing task - no mobiles, no social media, etc.
* Set targets or record progress as a way to motivate yourself. I made a silly thing to help me keep tack of progress: <https://github.com/felixvuo/tex-words-worm>. There are many apps or websites which will help you set a goal and record progress towards it.
* Keep speaking to experienced and helpful people. If your adviser is not very helpful, your uni might have a dedicated writing support facility or some other mentoring opportunity aimed at PhD students.
* Look at recent theses accepted by your institution in your field. Hopefully they are openly accessible online - they might give you some inspiration for what you're aiming at.
Good luck in getting started.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: ### TLDR:
1. write one sentence with the main point that you plan to prove beyond reasonable doubt in your dissertation.
2. Write a list of bullet points and sub-points which are indispensable for you to prove your main point.
3. Then go through each point and force yourself to write at least 200 words every day within 20-30 minutes. Do not be concerned with pretty words, that is utterly irrelevant at this stage: brainstorm and write anything that comes to mind during this period. Usually the best time to write is to wake up early, turn off phone notifications and write before most of your close ones start waking up. Once you reach the end of the list, start from the beginning, refining, adding and changing what you've already written. Rinse up and repeat.
**Note:** starting from a table of contents is also fine, as suggested by the previous poster. Just start writing somewhere, and make it a daily indispensable routine. 200 words per day starts to add up very quickly after a few months, even if you will end up rejecting at least 1/3 of what you originally wrote. Use the table of contents, and discuss it with your supervisor in a meeting, then proceed from there.)
---
There is no way to "efficiently" write a PhD thesis. You are presenting one research result that no one has ever found out before, and there is inevitably going to be some trial and error, failures and successes, until you get it done properly. It is self-defeating to think about "writing smart" or writing only "fully-matured ideas". You cannot actually start to think about your work until you've put your rough ideas on paper, and look at them again a few days later with fresh eyes, or show them to someone else for feedback. Don't rely only on your supervisor for help; try to get your colleagues to read each other's rough work. By talking to them, many times you will find out that an idea, or line of reasoning that you thought was crystal-clear is actually quite fuzzy and messy; at the very least, your colleagues can help you to clarify your arguments (even if they are not experts), and thus their input is often invaluable.
To state the obvious, it is pointless to wait for some magic moment when you can start writing. You should be writing a little bit every single day, at least 200 words, even if it seems like nonsense, or poorly written. That's what later revisions are for. No excuses, no procrastinations, no notifications, no distractions. Secure a daily slot of time only for yourself.
Anything beyond 200 words in 30 minutes per day is a bonus. If you run out of time, write a quick note for yourself to remember what you should write about in tomorrow's slot. Be sure to sleep well every day, go to sleep and wake up at the same time every day, eat properly and do some exercise as well. This will be indispensable to help you psychologically overcome the repetitiveness of writing a dissertation.
You were not particularly specific about your fields of study, but here are some bullet points that would help guide you:
1. What is the key point (thesis) that you intend to argue/prove beyond reasonable doubt in this dissertation? Write a short "Twitter-length" version, then a longer one.
2. What are the key sub-points (evidence/arguments) that you need to present in order to prove your thesis? Include only the indispensable ones. Later on, you might be able to add a few non-essential ones, but keep it simple.
3. What are the key points that previous researchers have argued regarding your topic, and how is your work going to improve upon their work? Which of their points do you agree, disagree and why?
4. What is the basic background information that you must add to each key point, so that all of the final judges can understand all of your arguments clearly? Since you are doing interdisciplinary work, it is likely that each of the professors will come from a different field. What is obvious for one person is completely unknown to another. Never assume that some background info is "too obvious" to write. Be concise and direct, make sure that all of your readers have the necessary background information at hand to understand the gist of your arguments. Footnotes can help to accommodate some of that info without breaking the flow of your argument.
5. What are the scientific techniques/methods that you will rely on to prove each argument? Present each of them concisely, and state how reliable they are. What are their advantages and limitations? What is their margin of error?
6. What are the historical/primary materials that you will rely on to prove your thesis? Who produced/compiled them, when? And how reliable are these sources? On which aspects are we likely to find lies and exaggerations, and on which aspects are we likely to find reliable information? If you are analysing a historical (art) object, how has it been transformed over time until the present?
7. For each of your arguments, are there alternative explanations? If you are trying to prove something, show not only the evidence that agrees with your hypothesis, but also the evidence that goes against it. If there are two or more possible explanations for a given phenomenon, present all of them to the reader, and then use your best judgement to select one of them, presenting it as a hypothesis (note however that at the very least, your key thesis point should be proved beyond reasonable doubt).
8. When presenting your arguments, always show how you combine techniques from different disciplines in order to support your reasoning. See if you can use images instead of words to make a certain point clearer, or to make a certain technique easier to understand for a non-expert. Use clear language at all times, so that even non-experts can understand the majority of your arguments. Use difficult terminology only when it is absolutely indispensable.
9. Make an excel list of all of the quotations/citations that are indispensable for proving your point. Make sure that for each quotation, you have another cell with the detailed bibliographical reference and page number, and add another cell with your comments regarding the quotation (ex: what is this quotation trying to say, and why does it matter for your final arguments?) In fact, you can start writing the dissertation just by writing such "comment" cells, and use them to start building up the main dissertation text.
10. As you expand and revise the text (and expect to fully revise your whole text a few times if you want to have anything of decent quality!), do not hesitate to remove things that might be interesting, curious, but are not particularly relevant to prove your point; It's alright to add a few extra bits of information here and there, but don't get carried away. If those "bits" start getting too long and are disrupting the flow of your arguments, you must be merciless: cut those parts, and put them in a separate word file, in a folder called "scrapbook". You will have the chance to reuse those ideas for future papers or a full-length book.
11. At the end, write a text reviewing all of the information that you previously presented, and explain how it all comes together to prove your thesis. Be implacably rigorous in your citations, references and bibliography. Make use of tools such as Zotero to carefully prepare such things.
12. If there are appendixes that are too lengthy to fit into the main text, or key images that are indispensable for proving a point, it is perhaps best to get them fully finished, organized and prepared before writing the final text.
---
There is nothing glamorous about writing a PhD. It is a "dirty", repetitive and sometimes tedious job. The point of getting a PhD is not to have some diploma to brag about (although it doesn't hurt); it is to prove to others that you capable of overcoming the mindless daily routine of getting basic research done, and proving your key arguments to people who are not familiar with you or your work.
I hope these points can serve as inspiration to get you to commit to a daily routine. Good luck and work hard (or more importantly, work consistently!).
**Note:** If you are not sure whether you have enough evidence to prove your points, make a pdf with a concise bullet list of your arguments, send it in advance to your supervisor(s) and request a 15-30 minute meeting with them. Since they are so busy, make it as easy as possible for them to understand your work quickly and provide quick feedback, so that they have time to move to other tasks. Consider rehearsing your main points in advance, so that you don't enter the meeting and start talking about random stuff, which will just be frustrating for everyone and waste precious time. Take detailed notes of the supervisor's/colleagues feedback.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Without plagiarizing, look at the efforts of prior students. What was their thesis like? Think of replacing their research with what you have to say. If they had 7 chapters, try 7 chapters, etc. Some basics will be in all of your advisor's students dissertation work, for example, all my advisor's students of the time would need to establish what a correlation matrix was and so forth .... So set up the basic structure related to your field.
There are a lot of things that can then be put into that basic structure. So, write an outline of what you are going to do, with chapter titles and possibly subheadings.
For my field (electrical engineering) there were several scientific / mathematical figures that I needed to have, so start working on those and arranging them if need be. Adding good captions, and text that describes them, can take one a long way in writing a dissertation.
Keep your goals in mind: Make a circle representing the whole thesis, and start filling it in as you complete it, sort of like the thermometer used in some fund-raising efforts.
For a thesis, you both need original work and related it to past work done by others. So, for the latter, you will need dozens of references, so start writing them out, and that too is an accomplishment.
My thesis was 200 pages long (which was long for the time in my field), some liberal arts ones can be much longer. Even if it is 500 pages long, if you average one page of work per day, you will be done in less than two years.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: **On the Very Much Lighter Side**
I've always liked Sir <NAME>'s approach:
>
> In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
>
>
>
It's tough to top that, but I do have to believe that he came up with it on a whim, perhaps after a nice stout or sherry.
In general, I just try to get something down when writing something new. If it's not a good beginning, I can always go back and provide an intro to what I have. Relax though, you've got this - you really do. You've done much of the hard parts already.
The key is to relax and have a bit of fun if you can.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Lots of great advice already. I'd like to add that formatting can quickly become very time consuming on a large document like a dissertation. It might pay to learn some of the finer points of your preferred document processor (e.g. Word, LibreOffice Writer, LaTeX, etc) now.
Your university probably has a template for your document processor. Get a copy of that and start messing with it.
Some things you should know how to do (in no particular order). Many or most of these things will be useful even if you leave academia forever:
* Use Styles. Most of your text will be in Normal or Default style. But Chapters and Sections should use Chapter and Heading Styles
* Use Autonumbering. Chapters, Sections, Equations, Figures can (and should!!) all be autonumbered and if you know how to use these features it will save you a lot of heartache later. Autonumbering for chapter/sections can be especially maddening, but is really helpful.
* Learn how to Insert Cross References. Say you want to refer to a Figure number in Chapter 7. You could do it by hand, but that would be a grave mistake. Because there is a 100% chance that your numbers will change and it will be very difficult to go back by hand and accurately change all of your references.
* Figure out a system for References/Endnotes. A million years ago when I wrote my dissertation, EndNote( see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EndNote) and [here](https://endnote.com/)) was a popular app. These days there are more options, including Zotero (see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zotero) and [here](https://www.zotero.org/)). Wikipedia has a page on [reference managers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software).
Make backups. If you can buy a bunch of cheap USB sticks, get a 10 pack and give copies to friends, families, partners for safekeeping.
**Good luck and keep your chin up. You can do this.**
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Many great points, though I'm going to offer something a little different: after you've set out an outline for the main points you need to cover, start with the part are you the most confident about/have you been working on most recently. When you're building that writing habit it will be hugely helpful if you can start with something you feel confident with. If that's the methodology or results chapters, start with those!
Also, starting is one of the hardest parts, but you can absolutely do this.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Many good answers on writing from scratch. I infer from the question that OP has already some research done and some papers published.
So, step one: Combine the papers together, one paper is one chapter. You might or might not want to use all the papers. On one hand, the more, the better. On the other, if they do not "fit" each other it might be easier to find some common ground, the inherent research question you were actually trying to answer with those papers. (Even if you do not have such a question in mind, your supervisor probably had.)
Step two: Fix the writing, for example, if a single related work chapter is required, pull out the corresponding parts of the papers.
Step three: Think hard. Everything about research question, the actual "hypothesis", etc. from the other answers applies here. (Actually, this should have been step zero.)
Step four: Produce some kind of a plan, how did you answer this question with what you now have in the theses. Write introduction and conclusions based on this understanding.
Step five: Revise. Revise. Revise until you are happy with the whole content. The whole process might take half a year.
---
A notice on properly conducted research: You *should have* started with the research question, at the beginning of your PhD. But if you did some research, produced some results, have some papers, but have no idea how to begin a thesis, then use the steps from above.
So, for the completeness, here are the steps the way it should have been done:
1. Identify research hypothesis.
2. Plan out the research to be done, put meaningful parts of it into research projects (corresponding to papers). This is the actual table of contents of the main part of your future thesis.
3. Get the work done, get the papers published, one after another.
4. Each paper is now a chapter of the thesis.
5. General formatting adjustments, such as one central related work.
6. Write introduction and conclusions.
7. Revise until happy.
---
Oh, and do yourself a favour. If you are in maths, computer science, physics, probably even chemistry or biology, use LaTeX. There are some tricks to use, so you don't need to learn all the syntax (keyword: markdown). LaTeX is ugly to deal with, at first. During first two weeks you probably won't be able to write a single word, because you are fighting with the layout and the formatting syntax.
But in the end, it will pay up. Firstly, it looks much nicer. Secondly, writing a large, 100+ pages document in Word is a pain. You can write 1000 pages in LaTeX quite in the same manner you write 100. You can also use version control (keyword: git) to track the revisions of your document. In this way, you can go back to a better wording you deleted two weeks ago due to an oversight. You can easily track your progress. You see what has changed between the versions. And, of course, you can use GitHub or GitLab to store the current state somewhere else. Which might be useful if your laptop self-ignites or gets stollen.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Everyone has a different approach to this, and you must find your own. My own approach tends to be to start at the beginning and keep writing till I get to the end; then go back to the beginning and revise. I will have an outline plan, but it won't be much more than a list of chapter headings and perhaps a paragraph saying what goes in each chapter. I might change the writing order if I can reuse material for some of the content; or I might leave the introduction till last, when I know more clearly what I'm introducing. If I get stuck during the first pass, because I don't know what to say, I'll leave a "TODO" in the text, for example "[TODO: explain here why approach X wasn't feasible]", or "[TODO: citation needed]", or "[TODO: this should probably have been covered in Chap 3]" - the general idea is that by the time you're in the writing phase, everything you want to write should be in your head, and you shouldn't interrupt the flow of the writing process to do more research. The thing I find important is to maintain momentum: once you've started, keep pressing on, don't go back to revise the text, and don't stop to gather information, until you've got to the end.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Everyone has their own approach. I am a skilled procrastinator, but realize that "tomorrow" is the place where lays 90% of human plans and work. My PhD was in France in the late 90's in applied physics.
I started my PhD by the acknowledgments section. That was an easy **1 page**.
After taking some rest, I jumped to the parts I liked the most, the technical and scientific "meat" of my thesis. In practical terms, this meant taking my papers and nicely merging them together.
We are now at at least **10-20 pages** - a very good start.
I then did the conclusion section, basically congratulating myself for the great discoveries. We should be at **20 or 25 pages** by now.
This was followed by a section my advisor almost fainted at - the discussion of how it could have been better, what is wrong with the thesis, etc. This is normally the work of the reviewers but I wanted to be honest and not hide some issues. Out of the five reviewers, one said that this was unacceptable and wrote more or less the same text I did, and two thanked me for improved vacation time (they were reviewing the thesis in the summer).
We are now at **40 pages** or so, time to wrap up.
The introduction was **1 page** long - after announcing the general topic (an extension of the title of sorts) I wrote that if one needs some introduction, it is best to read this and that book and come back to the thesis later.
This brings us to about **45 pages** total and this is, tadaam, my PhD.
You may have noticed two irritating problems with this approach:
* the smart-assness of the author who believes that 45 pages are enough when 150 is expected of such a pit of wisdom (my good friend wrote *two tomes*). My beloved doctoral advisor (I really, really liked him) told me that thankfully this is my thesis and that I will have to do the belly dancing.
* the complete lack of plan when writing the thesis: yes. I was afraid that if I start with a plan (say, the table of contents) I will be scared and leave that to tomorrow.
Writing my thesis was surprisingly fun and rather quick.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: The way I wrote my thesis (and any associated publications during that time) was to *slowly* build up a very detailed outline.
This process is mostly relevant for introduction/discussion sections where you're trying to consolidate a lot of external information. In a nutshell:
1. I started this process very early on, maybe 1 year into my PhD, and each day I was contributing a little bit to the final thesis. That way I always felt like I was making a little bit of progress, without feeling overwhelmed with trying to write 100+ pages in a short amount of time
2. Whenever I read a research paper, I would write a 1 line summary of the main finding into my outline. This includes the citation to the paper (use a ref manager to help)
3. Over time, these 1 line summaries will naturally group into relevant/related topics, so I would create sub headers for them
4. As these sections fill out, it's also useful to write "connecting sentences" that explain how you would transition from one paper/summary/idea into the next. **This is probably the most important part**
5. Every few months, take a big picture view of the growing outline and add/remove/rearrange things to help tidy up the structure
After a couple of years of this process, where you're contributing just a little bit each day, you end up with a very detailed "outline" that contains all of your ideas, how they're related to each other, how you will transition from 1 idea to the next, and all of the relevant references. Over time my outline grew to about 25% the size of my final thesis.
The thesis almost writes itself at this point, because you just need to go in and add some proper grammar and flesh things out a bit. The final thesis itself only took about 1-2 weeks to put together, although technically I had been "writing" it for a few years
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: >
> Where to start - writing up a PhD thesis
>
>
>
>
> I am 2 1/2 years in a a part time PhD and really struggling to know where to start with the writing up phase.
>
>
>
>
> I have enough research, although this is obviously subject to change, but really don't know where to start...it feels completely overwhelming.
>
>
>
It sounds to me like you are wanting to start earlier than necessary, and there's nothing wrong with that.
One of the pitfalls many thesis-writers fall into is simply writing too much; too many background chapters or too much literature review (every paper I've ever read that's somewhat related) making their thesis too front-end heavy.
This costs valuable time and may lead to some committee members to simply skim or completely skip reading big chunks of your thesis.
### So I always recommend students to build their thesis like a house.
* Start with the structure. An outline with enumerated chapters and *descriptive* chapter titles. If you think each chapter will take two weeks to write, multiply that by 2 *and then again by pi*. Write those numbers down on your outline and add them up. Ouch! This prevents you from suddenly adding spurious or notional chapters without thinking about the consequences.
* Now add *descriptive* subsection titles to each chapter.
* Under each subsection, add notes for what figures (if any) you plan on putting there, and start adding the references you're likely to cite there.
Now you have a structure, a framework, a "map of work" and its associated estimate of how long it will take.
### Then do your "interior decoration" one room at a time
You will see that for some parts you are pretty clear what is needed to say, and to include (figures, references) and you can probably start roughing out some text today.
And for others, it's still murky or unclear because the research is incomplete or things may change. Decide on a date when you'll start working on those.
Of course this is a "living document" and will evolve as your research and understanding of the work evolves. But try to be very careful not to add anything to it without taking away something else, because it's so easy to end up with a runaway thesis or "never ending story".
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/14
| 6,551
| 27,311
|
<issue_start>username_0: I come from a Theoretical Physics background and we are working on some interesting topics related to black holes and neutron stars. In present times, various collaboration like the Gravitational Waves, Event Horizon Telescope etc are quite successful in experimental verification of the theoretical concepts. I find that our works published few years ago are quite relevant to these collaboration papers, but our papers are never cited in their papers.
I want to know about two things: (1) In a collaboration where there are around 500 researchers (co-authors), who among them decides the references and writes the papers? (2) How to get relevant papers from our group cited in the collaboration papers?<issue_comment>username_1: It is always a good idea to start at the beginning, that is the title and the table of contents. This should give you a pretty good idea of what you want to say. Papers you have written can often be added as separate chapters without excessive massaging.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm in a similar position - about to start writing just less than 6 months before funding runs out. I guess the advice would differ depending on your discipline, the expectations from your adviser or institution, your personality and preferences.
Things that might work:
* Have a discussion with your adviser and set a deadline for handing something in, e.g. a particular chapter. Having this commitment might help to focus the mind and get something down, even if it's not great. Then you review and re-visit the strategy from there.
* Work top-down. What is the overall story or set of contributions? How will you develop these through your dissertation? As username_1 says, you could literally start out by putting section titles in and seeing the table of contents grow into a structure that makes sense. Then you'd break it down into subsections, figures, tables, case-studies etc.
* Work bottom-up. Maybe you've written a conference paper, or produced a particularly interesting result, or you have some notes about a paper you've reviwed and used which could form one subsection of your lit review. Get these into a document and be prepared to re-write, chop, re-order. Having something there feels like an achievement and you can keep throwing a few building blocks in there until you step back and start thinking a bit more about the big picture.
* Join a writing group. Many universities have a zoom meeting (or a physical room) set up for 2-3 hrs on a weekly basis where people commit to come and work quietly on a defined writing task - no mobiles, no social media, etc.
* Set targets or record progress as a way to motivate yourself. I made a silly thing to help me keep tack of progress: <https://github.com/felixvuo/tex-words-worm>. There are many apps or websites which will help you set a goal and record progress towards it.
* Keep speaking to experienced and helpful people. If your adviser is not very helpful, your uni might have a dedicated writing support facility or some other mentoring opportunity aimed at PhD students.
* Look at recent theses accepted by your institution in your field. Hopefully they are openly accessible online - they might give you some inspiration for what you're aiming at.
Good luck in getting started.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: ### TLDR:
1. write one sentence with the main point that you plan to prove beyond reasonable doubt in your dissertation.
2. Write a list of bullet points and sub-points which are indispensable for you to prove your main point.
3. Then go through each point and force yourself to write at least 200 words every day within 20-30 minutes. Do not be concerned with pretty words, that is utterly irrelevant at this stage: brainstorm and write anything that comes to mind during this period. Usually the best time to write is to wake up early, turn off phone notifications and write before most of your close ones start waking up. Once you reach the end of the list, start from the beginning, refining, adding and changing what you've already written. Rinse up and repeat.
**Note:** starting from a table of contents is also fine, as suggested by the previous poster. Just start writing somewhere, and make it a daily indispensable routine. 200 words per day starts to add up very quickly after a few months, even if you will end up rejecting at least 1/3 of what you originally wrote. Use the table of contents, and discuss it with your supervisor in a meeting, then proceed from there.)
---
There is no way to "efficiently" write a PhD thesis. You are presenting one research result that no one has ever found out before, and there is inevitably going to be some trial and error, failures and successes, until you get it done properly. It is self-defeating to think about "writing smart" or writing only "fully-matured ideas". You cannot actually start to think about your work until you've put your rough ideas on paper, and look at them again a few days later with fresh eyes, or show them to someone else for feedback. Don't rely only on your supervisor for help; try to get your colleagues to read each other's rough work. By talking to them, many times you will find out that an idea, or line of reasoning that you thought was crystal-clear is actually quite fuzzy and messy; at the very least, your colleagues can help you to clarify your arguments (even if they are not experts), and thus their input is often invaluable.
To state the obvious, it is pointless to wait for some magic moment when you can start writing. You should be writing a little bit every single day, at least 200 words, even if it seems like nonsense, or poorly written. That's what later revisions are for. No excuses, no procrastinations, no notifications, no distractions. Secure a daily slot of time only for yourself.
Anything beyond 200 words in 30 minutes per day is a bonus. If you run out of time, write a quick note for yourself to remember what you should write about in tomorrow's slot. Be sure to sleep well every day, go to sleep and wake up at the same time every day, eat properly and do some exercise as well. This will be indispensable to help you psychologically overcome the repetitiveness of writing a dissertation.
You were not particularly specific about your fields of study, but here are some bullet points that would help guide you:
1. What is the key point (thesis) that you intend to argue/prove beyond reasonable doubt in this dissertation? Write a short "Twitter-length" version, then a longer one.
2. What are the key sub-points (evidence/arguments) that you need to present in order to prove your thesis? Include only the indispensable ones. Later on, you might be able to add a few non-essential ones, but keep it simple.
3. What are the key points that previous researchers have argued regarding your topic, and how is your work going to improve upon their work? Which of their points do you agree, disagree and why?
4. What is the basic background information that you must add to each key point, so that all of the final judges can understand all of your arguments clearly? Since you are doing interdisciplinary work, it is likely that each of the professors will come from a different field. What is obvious for one person is completely unknown to another. Never assume that some background info is "too obvious" to write. Be concise and direct, make sure that all of your readers have the necessary background information at hand to understand the gist of your arguments. Footnotes can help to accommodate some of that info without breaking the flow of your argument.
5. What are the scientific techniques/methods that you will rely on to prove each argument? Present each of them concisely, and state how reliable they are. What are their advantages and limitations? What is their margin of error?
6. What are the historical/primary materials that you will rely on to prove your thesis? Who produced/compiled them, when? And how reliable are these sources? On which aspects are we likely to find lies and exaggerations, and on which aspects are we likely to find reliable information? If you are analysing a historical (art) object, how has it been transformed over time until the present?
7. For each of your arguments, are there alternative explanations? If you are trying to prove something, show not only the evidence that agrees with your hypothesis, but also the evidence that goes against it. If there are two or more possible explanations for a given phenomenon, present all of them to the reader, and then use your best judgement to select one of them, presenting it as a hypothesis (note however that at the very least, your key thesis point should be proved beyond reasonable doubt).
8. When presenting your arguments, always show how you combine techniques from different disciplines in order to support your reasoning. See if you can use images instead of words to make a certain point clearer, or to make a certain technique easier to understand for a non-expert. Use clear language at all times, so that even non-experts can understand the majority of your arguments. Use difficult terminology only when it is absolutely indispensable.
9. Make an excel list of all of the quotations/citations that are indispensable for proving your point. Make sure that for each quotation, you have another cell with the detailed bibliographical reference and page number, and add another cell with your comments regarding the quotation (ex: what is this quotation trying to say, and why does it matter for your final arguments?) In fact, you can start writing the dissertation just by writing such "comment" cells, and use them to start building up the main dissertation text.
10. As you expand and revise the text (and expect to fully revise your whole text a few times if you want to have anything of decent quality!), do not hesitate to remove things that might be interesting, curious, but are not particularly relevant to prove your point; It's alright to add a few extra bits of information here and there, but don't get carried away. If those "bits" start getting too long and are disrupting the flow of your arguments, you must be merciless: cut those parts, and put them in a separate word file, in a folder called "scrapbook". You will have the chance to reuse those ideas for future papers or a full-length book.
11. At the end, write a text reviewing all of the information that you previously presented, and explain how it all comes together to prove your thesis. Be implacably rigorous in your citations, references and bibliography. Make use of tools such as Zotero to carefully prepare such things.
12. If there are appendixes that are too lengthy to fit into the main text, or key images that are indispensable for proving a point, it is perhaps best to get them fully finished, organized and prepared before writing the final text.
---
There is nothing glamorous about writing a PhD. It is a "dirty", repetitive and sometimes tedious job. The point of getting a PhD is not to have some diploma to brag about (although it doesn't hurt); it is to prove to others that you capable of overcoming the mindless daily routine of getting basic research done, and proving your key arguments to people who are not familiar with you or your work.
I hope these points can serve as inspiration to get you to commit to a daily routine. Good luck and work hard (or more importantly, work consistently!).
**Note:** If you are not sure whether you have enough evidence to prove your points, make a pdf with a concise bullet list of your arguments, send it in advance to your supervisor(s) and request a 15-30 minute meeting with them. Since they are so busy, make it as easy as possible for them to understand your work quickly and provide quick feedback, so that they have time to move to other tasks. Consider rehearsing your main points in advance, so that you don't enter the meeting and start talking about random stuff, which will just be frustrating for everyone and waste precious time. Take detailed notes of the supervisor's/colleagues feedback.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Without plagiarizing, look at the efforts of prior students. What was their thesis like? Think of replacing their research with what you have to say. If they had 7 chapters, try 7 chapters, etc. Some basics will be in all of your advisor's students dissertation work, for example, all my advisor's students of the time would need to establish what a correlation matrix was and so forth .... So set up the basic structure related to your field.
There are a lot of things that can then be put into that basic structure. So, write an outline of what you are going to do, with chapter titles and possibly subheadings.
For my field (electrical engineering) there were several scientific / mathematical figures that I needed to have, so start working on those and arranging them if need be. Adding good captions, and text that describes them, can take one a long way in writing a dissertation.
Keep your goals in mind: Make a circle representing the whole thesis, and start filling it in as you complete it, sort of like the thermometer used in some fund-raising efforts.
For a thesis, you both need original work and related it to past work done by others. So, for the latter, you will need dozens of references, so start writing them out, and that too is an accomplishment.
My thesis was 200 pages long (which was long for the time in my field), some liberal arts ones can be much longer. Even if it is 500 pages long, if you average one page of work per day, you will be done in less than two years.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: **On the Very Much Lighter Side**
I've always liked Sir <NAME>'s approach:
>
> In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
>
>
>
It's tough to top that, but I do have to believe that he came up with it on a whim, perhaps after a nice stout or sherry.
In general, I just try to get something down when writing something new. If it's not a good beginning, I can always go back and provide an intro to what I have. Relax though, you've got this - you really do. You've done much of the hard parts already.
The key is to relax and have a bit of fun if you can.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Lots of great advice already. I'd like to add that formatting can quickly become very time consuming on a large document like a dissertation. It might pay to learn some of the finer points of your preferred document processor (e.g. Word, LibreOffice Writer, LaTeX, etc) now.
Your university probably has a template for your document processor. Get a copy of that and start messing with it.
Some things you should know how to do (in no particular order). Many or most of these things will be useful even if you leave academia forever:
* Use Styles. Most of your text will be in Normal or Default style. But Chapters and Sections should use Chapter and Heading Styles
* Use Autonumbering. Chapters, Sections, Equations, Figures can (and should!!) all be autonumbered and if you know how to use these features it will save you a lot of heartache later. Autonumbering for chapter/sections can be especially maddening, but is really helpful.
* Learn how to Insert Cross References. Say you want to refer to a Figure number in Chapter 7. You could do it by hand, but that would be a grave mistake. Because there is a 100% chance that your numbers will change and it will be very difficult to go back by hand and accurately change all of your references.
* Figure out a system for References/Endnotes. A million years ago when I wrote my dissertation, EndNote( see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EndNote) and [here](https://endnote.com/)) was a popular app. These days there are more options, including Zotero (see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zotero) and [here](https://www.zotero.org/)). Wikipedia has a page on [reference managers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software).
Make backups. If you can buy a bunch of cheap USB sticks, get a 10 pack and give copies to friends, families, partners for safekeeping.
**Good luck and keep your chin up. You can do this.**
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Many great points, though I'm going to offer something a little different: after you've set out an outline for the main points you need to cover, start with the part are you the most confident about/have you been working on most recently. When you're building that writing habit it will be hugely helpful if you can start with something you feel confident with. If that's the methodology or results chapters, start with those!
Also, starting is one of the hardest parts, but you can absolutely do this.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Many good answers on writing from scratch. I infer from the question that OP has already some research done and some papers published.
So, step one: Combine the papers together, one paper is one chapter. You might or might not want to use all the papers. On one hand, the more, the better. On the other, if they do not "fit" each other it might be easier to find some common ground, the inherent research question you were actually trying to answer with those papers. (Even if you do not have such a question in mind, your supervisor probably had.)
Step two: Fix the writing, for example, if a single related work chapter is required, pull out the corresponding parts of the papers.
Step three: Think hard. Everything about research question, the actual "hypothesis", etc. from the other answers applies here. (Actually, this should have been step zero.)
Step four: Produce some kind of a plan, how did you answer this question with what you now have in the theses. Write introduction and conclusions based on this understanding.
Step five: Revise. Revise. Revise until you are happy with the whole content. The whole process might take half a year.
---
A notice on properly conducted research: You *should have* started with the research question, at the beginning of your PhD. But if you did some research, produced some results, have some papers, but have no idea how to begin a thesis, then use the steps from above.
So, for the completeness, here are the steps the way it should have been done:
1. Identify research hypothesis.
2. Plan out the research to be done, put meaningful parts of it into research projects (corresponding to papers). This is the actual table of contents of the main part of your future thesis.
3. Get the work done, get the papers published, one after another.
4. Each paper is now a chapter of the thesis.
5. General formatting adjustments, such as one central related work.
6. Write introduction and conclusions.
7. Revise until happy.
---
Oh, and do yourself a favour. If you are in maths, computer science, physics, probably even chemistry or biology, use LaTeX. There are some tricks to use, so you don't need to learn all the syntax (keyword: markdown). LaTeX is ugly to deal with, at first. During first two weeks you probably won't be able to write a single word, because you are fighting with the layout and the formatting syntax.
But in the end, it will pay up. Firstly, it looks much nicer. Secondly, writing a large, 100+ pages document in Word is a pain. You can write 1000 pages in LaTeX quite in the same manner you write 100. You can also use version control (keyword: git) to track the revisions of your document. In this way, you can go back to a better wording you deleted two weeks ago due to an oversight. You can easily track your progress. You see what has changed between the versions. And, of course, you can use GitHub or GitLab to store the current state somewhere else. Which might be useful if your laptop self-ignites or gets stollen.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Everyone has a different approach to this, and you must find your own. My own approach tends to be to start at the beginning and keep writing till I get to the end; then go back to the beginning and revise. I will have an outline plan, but it won't be much more than a list of chapter headings and perhaps a paragraph saying what goes in each chapter. I might change the writing order if I can reuse material for some of the content; or I might leave the introduction till last, when I know more clearly what I'm introducing. If I get stuck during the first pass, because I don't know what to say, I'll leave a "TODO" in the text, for example "[TODO: explain here why approach X wasn't feasible]", or "[TODO: citation needed]", or "[TODO: this should probably have been covered in Chap 3]" - the general idea is that by the time you're in the writing phase, everything you want to write should be in your head, and you shouldn't interrupt the flow of the writing process to do more research. The thing I find important is to maintain momentum: once you've started, keep pressing on, don't go back to revise the text, and don't stop to gather information, until you've got to the end.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Everyone has their own approach. I am a skilled procrastinator, but realize that "tomorrow" is the place where lays 90% of human plans and work. My PhD was in France in the late 90's in applied physics.
I started my PhD by the acknowledgments section. That was an easy **1 page**.
After taking some rest, I jumped to the parts I liked the most, the technical and scientific "meat" of my thesis. In practical terms, this meant taking my papers and nicely merging them together.
We are now at at least **10-20 pages** - a very good start.
I then did the conclusion section, basically congratulating myself for the great discoveries. We should be at **20 or 25 pages** by now.
This was followed by a section my advisor almost fainted at - the discussion of how it could have been better, what is wrong with the thesis, etc. This is normally the work of the reviewers but I wanted to be honest and not hide some issues. Out of the five reviewers, one said that this was unacceptable and wrote more or less the same text I did, and two thanked me for improved vacation time (they were reviewing the thesis in the summer).
We are now at **40 pages** or so, time to wrap up.
The introduction was **1 page** long - after announcing the general topic (an extension of the title of sorts) I wrote that if one needs some introduction, it is best to read this and that book and come back to the thesis later.
This brings us to about **45 pages** total and this is, tadaam, my PhD.
You may have noticed two irritating problems with this approach:
* the smart-assness of the author who believes that 45 pages are enough when 150 is expected of such a pit of wisdom (my good friend wrote *two tomes*). My beloved doctoral advisor (I really, really liked him) told me that thankfully this is my thesis and that I will have to do the belly dancing.
* the complete lack of plan when writing the thesis: yes. I was afraid that if I start with a plan (say, the table of contents) I will be scared and leave that to tomorrow.
Writing my thesis was surprisingly fun and rather quick.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: The way I wrote my thesis (and any associated publications during that time) was to *slowly* build up a very detailed outline.
This process is mostly relevant for introduction/discussion sections where you're trying to consolidate a lot of external information. In a nutshell:
1. I started this process very early on, maybe 1 year into my PhD, and each day I was contributing a little bit to the final thesis. That way I always felt like I was making a little bit of progress, without feeling overwhelmed with trying to write 100+ pages in a short amount of time
2. Whenever I read a research paper, I would write a 1 line summary of the main finding into my outline. This includes the citation to the paper (use a ref manager to help)
3. Over time, these 1 line summaries will naturally group into relevant/related topics, so I would create sub headers for them
4. As these sections fill out, it's also useful to write "connecting sentences" that explain how you would transition from one paper/summary/idea into the next. **This is probably the most important part**
5. Every few months, take a big picture view of the growing outline and add/remove/rearrange things to help tidy up the structure
After a couple of years of this process, where you're contributing just a little bit each day, you end up with a very detailed "outline" that contains all of your ideas, how they're related to each other, how you will transition from 1 idea to the next, and all of the relevant references. Over time my outline grew to about 25% the size of my final thesis.
The thesis almost writes itself at this point, because you just need to go in and add some proper grammar and flesh things out a bit. The final thesis itself only took about 1-2 weeks to put together, although technically I had been "writing" it for a few years
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: >
> Where to start - writing up a PhD thesis
>
>
>
>
> I am 2 1/2 years in a a part time PhD and really struggling to know where to start with the writing up phase.
>
>
>
>
> I have enough research, although this is obviously subject to change, but really don't know where to start...it feels completely overwhelming.
>
>
>
It sounds to me like you are wanting to start earlier than necessary, and there's nothing wrong with that.
One of the pitfalls many thesis-writers fall into is simply writing too much; too many background chapters or too much literature review (every paper I've ever read that's somewhat related) making their thesis too front-end heavy.
This costs valuable time and may lead to some committee members to simply skim or completely skip reading big chunks of your thesis.
### So I always recommend students to build their thesis like a house.
* Start with the structure. An outline with enumerated chapters and *descriptive* chapter titles. If you think each chapter will take two weeks to write, multiply that by 2 *and then again by pi*. Write those numbers down on your outline and add them up. Ouch! This prevents you from suddenly adding spurious or notional chapters without thinking about the consequences.
* Now add *descriptive* subsection titles to each chapter.
* Under each subsection, add notes for what figures (if any) you plan on putting there, and start adding the references you're likely to cite there.
Now you have a structure, a framework, a "map of work" and its associated estimate of how long it will take.
### Then do your "interior decoration" one room at a time
You will see that for some parts you are pretty clear what is needed to say, and to include (figures, references) and you can probably start roughing out some text today.
And for others, it's still murky or unclear because the research is incomplete or things may change. Decide on a date when you'll start working on those.
Of course this is a "living document" and will evolve as your research and understanding of the work evolves. But try to be very careful not to add anything to it without taking away something else, because it's so easy to end up with a runaway thesis or "never ending story".
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/14
| 568
| 2,156
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have sent the following cover letter to several scientists but I haven't gotten a single reply. How can it be improved?
>
> X
>
>
> I am writing this letter for a postdoctoral position in your reputed
> laboratory. Presently, I am working as manager at Z limited. I have
> completed my doctoral work at A, supervised by Dr. B.
>
>
> I will be submitting my thesis on A in August of
> 2022. My Ph.D. work on A has helped me develop skills relevant to the postdoctoral position. My article published in Journal X in 2021 discusses B. I have further mentioned about my findings.
>
>
> I studied your recent research projects on A
> in mice, and I am interested in the ongoing topics. I liked your
> article, "P," published in M in 2016.
>
>
> Therefore, I want to pursue my postdoctoral studies in your lab. I
> have attached my CV for your perusal. Please look at the CV and let me
> know if you need some more information about my research career and
> interest. Thank you for your time, and looking forward to hearing back
> from you at your convenience.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: This question is probably too specific for this site, but here is some advice: insert several paragraph breaks, cut "reputed", make it clear whether you are applying for an advertised position or not, make the description of your research shorter, cut obvious points like "Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide", and say something more interesting about their research than that you found it "interesting" and you "liked" it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: On top of username_1's suggestions:
* explain why you want to work there (many people do something "interesting", especially if you don't explain how the interesting stuff relates to your own stuff)
* explain why they want to work with you (what can you bring in they are lacking, or at least need for the project)
* explain why you are (one of) the ideal candidate(s) for this position
... and don't write the same letter to "several" scientists with just a different reference you "liked" (which is 6 years old) - people notice that.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/14
| 1,483
| 6,085
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a fourth-year undergrad math major. Consider two universities X and Y. X is my home university, while I've been doing summer research (sort of an REU) at Y. Y is (much) more reputed than X is, especially for mathematics, i.e., my field of research.
I plan to apply to math PhD programs in the US soon, before which I'd want to reach out to some professors, let them know I'm applying, and perhaps ask a couple of relevant questions. Does it matter whether I use my university email from X or Y?
Keeping in mind the large volume of emails that professors get, I thought it might make more sense to use an email address that's affiliated with a more reputed institution, but that could just be my bias as well. I'd love to know your thoughts!
**Note:** Yes, I do get to keep the email from Y even after the summer ends, even though I shall not be present at Y in person anymore.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest your home university as it minimizes the possibility of any foul-ups in communication. I think the potential "advantage" of having an email from a more prestigious institution is so small as to be meaningless compared to the things that matter in any application. You will, of course, note your summer work at Y somewhere in your application, which is enough to make the connection.
And, blind emails are often disregarded, even from fancy email addresses. And note that in the US, you normally apply to a department, not an individual professor, in any case using a defined application process.
Most US professors won't have much to say to an out of band email other than "I encourage you to apply via the standard process." In particular, they are unlikely to be involved in the application/approval process unless they happen to be on that committee. If you get accepted into the program then you have time to talk to professors about advisement.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Always use a professional one with your name and a web provider. I would discourage you from using a university account unless it is clear that you are just a student there (we make our students use a student. domain).
I delete emails that come from *masteroftheuniverse* or *sweetchick* or *seeyainhell* without reading them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Your REU account was assigned to make it easier to communicate with you during the REU, not to help you impress people. Use the account from your home institution.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Let's put it differently: yes, it matters, and do the reverse of what you think to save yourself a lot of future problems, it will be clearer in 3-4 paragraphs.
You are a student and you are trying to "engage a conversation" with a professor. Said professor should be interested in your work and should engage because your questions. If they do not engage, it simply mean they had no time, you have no political power, so your email ends up in the pile "interesting, to be answered in a couple of weeks".
Unfortunately, a couple of weeks = never, life is hard, don't take it personally and move on.
However, the professor H may notice that you are writing from the well known universitY and the professor may have an interest in getting their power extended to said universitY. You may even be so (un)lucky your work at the universitY is appearing on some internet pages captured by google as done with the famous professor G at universitY. Said professor H may do a quick Google search and find that. You will be very relevant, because you may be an extremely useful pawn.
Professor H may then became your PhD advisor because of some machination. They will then discover you did not pay the huge fees at universitY, you are not part of the alumni of universitY and you have no good contact with famous professor G. They will be an awful supervisor. No way that such a big ego (there are many in academia) can be a good advisor.
The issue is not really if you should/will use the email from universitY, the issue is what kind of professor is giving "more points" to a student because the student is writing from the email from universitY instead than from X.
Ps: on a brighter note, locally it may be helpful to arrange a visit to a good dentist or to arrange a room to rent (or even a job) to use the email from universitY. Ethical? well, you are doing something at universitY, the issue is the receiving person and the bias they have towards people from the universitY instead of using their mail .mx ...
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: The prestige of the university your email account is associated with is of minimal importance. Instead, I would suggest you consider the following desiderata.
1. Use an email address that you can reliably receive email at. If you REU account is going to be shut down in a month, then don't use it.
2. Use an email address that won't be sent to spam. Usually this shouldn't be an issue, but sometimes university IT departments haven't properly secured their mail servers and network, so email from the institutional addresses gets flagged as suspicious. (In some cases, gmail is better than an institutional email!) If you or you friends have had bad experiences with your university's mail system, don't use it.
3. Use an email address that appropriately reflects who you are. If you send email from a harvard.edu address, but your CV says you're at the University of Statesville, that seems a bit odd. It won't impress people; it will just confuse them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Better, use your email address that you will keep for long duration. Better to have academic email id (say .edu).
However, specifically for your purpose of doing this:
>
> let them know I'm applying, and perhaps ask a couple of relevant questions
>
>
>
1. Follow the academic department procedure.
2. Go to symposiums/conferences were this professor would be usually and directly interact.
3. Use any special drive from the university to interact with faculty for your prospective application/interest.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/14
| 593
| 2,654
|
<issue_start>username_0: Associate Editors (AEs) are experts in their research fields and some of them are widely well-known to the research community. However, sometimes AEs' peer-review invitations are faced with refusal from academics, due to the lack of time, other engagements, etc. This obliges AEs sometimes to send the invitations to academics in their acquaintance to maximize the chance of getting acceptance.
Can the high status of an Associate Editor within the research community diminish the number of refused sent peer-review invitations to academics?<issue_comment>username_1: Every case is different. People normally review because they want to provide a service to the profession and get early access to potentially new ideas. The star-status of the editor is probably not a consideration for almost everyone.
If a AE can pique the interest of a potential reviewer, however, it might make some difference, as can having a personal/professional relationship with a potential reviewer. I might go out of my way for a friend/AE but not otherwise.
Editors try to develop, over time, a large "stable" of potential reviewers and not to overload them, especially with marginal papers. Then, they have fallbacks for refusals.
Refusals are done for the other reasons you suggest and overloading a reviewer isn't optimal if it means the paper gets a low priority with a reviewer due to other factors, resulting in a long delayed report.
Moreover, the editor/reviewer relationship is invisible to most of the community in any case. So, not a lot of incentive to review a paper that would overload you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It is probably the other way around (which has the same net effect): It is easier to decline a review invitation if the AE asking you is someone you've never heard of, and who does not hold a position of authority in the community. That's because there are no repercussions: You'll likely never meet that person at a conference, you won't need a letter of recommendation from them, and they won't vote on your application for some major prize in your community.
I don't want to suggest that accepting or declining reviewer invitations is as transactional as I make it out above. The majority of reviewing happens because a reviewer invited to a paper finds the topic interesting and/or feels an obligation to their profession to participate in the review process. But in a certain percentage of invitations, a potential reviewer is genuinely pressed for time or at the limit of their knowledge, and it is those cases where other considerations such as those mentioned above come into play.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/15
| 377
| 1,523
|
<issue_start>username_0: **UPDATE:** received a reply from PI wishing me a good luck on my future endeavors.
I have sent my CV and letter to a PI. The PI received and replied me "we will review and get back to you".
As of now, 30 days has passed and I have sent a follow-up email two days ago.
Is it normal that PI just ignore or not reply to candidate who they think doesn't fit into their lab?
I'm kinda confused with the last reply and not sure application review process usually take this long. (The lab is quite big with 15-20 postdocs).<issue_comment>username_1: Well… was there an ad for a postdoc position?
If no, then exactly what do you expect? That this person reply to you on your schedule?
If yes, then presumably there was a deadline, and there may have been multiple candidates (possibly 10s if the group is as large as your suggest). The process of hiring takes time so it’s likely you will get an update if you are selected for the position or for an interview.
… and it is not uncommon for people not to reply to unsolicited emails or CVs. Some do reply, others don’t. Why would you expect they necessarily would if this is unsolicited?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: That is pretty normal and nothing personal against you. Well-known groups get tons of applications. It might happen that they need more time and it might also happen that they forget to answer to some of the applicants. You should just continue applying to other positions as well and not think about it too much.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/15
| 1,188
| 5,161
|
<issue_start>username_0: Consider a case of plagiarism like [this one](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02002-5). The allegation in this case led to formal investigations, articles being retracted, and researchers being sanctioned.
Who is the responsible body for launching and conducting these sorts of investigations? Are there global laws that determine norms of ethical conduct and describe the procedure for dealing with breaches?<issue_comment>username_1: No, these issues are typically not handled by international standards/laws/governing bodies. Few of these even exist: academia is not organized hierarchically at the international level; for many countries it's not even organized at the national level.
In the example you cite:
>
> Five years ago, OSU, in Columbus, opened inquiries into papers
>
>
>
In this case, you can see that it's the university (Ohio State University, located in Columbus, Ohio, US) doing the investigation, because the person accused is their employee. There are other Q&A on this site asking "what's the use of a university to a researcher" or some variation on that theme; well, here's one of the uses. By working at an institution that values its own reputation, researchers open themselves to investigation by the institution that they work for. This gives everyone else that works at the institution some additional credibility, in that their job is at risk if they break the rules.
>
> Concerns about work from Croce’s laboratory first came to widespread attention in 2017, when *The New York Times* reported on allegations of research misconduct
>
>
>
The media also has a role; by reporting on these allegations, the newspaper induces others to investigate. In this case, it seems some OSU investigations occurred before the newspaper report, but the report also induced the university to investigate further. Media attention also may attract other people who were wronged by someone and perhaps have a stronger case than they realized once their accusations are pooled with similar accusations by other people.
*Nature* is also acting in more of a media role (rather than as an academic journal) by posting this article.
The primary bodies that deal with accusations of plagiarism in academia are:
* Universities and other academic institutions, who have the power to fire researchers, deny students credit or graduation, etc.
* Journals and publishers, who have the power to retract articles in their publications.
* Media at large, including newspapers, who can induce others to act through public attention and embarrassment
* Granting agencies, who can require academic institutions to uphold ethical standards and withhold funds from individuals or entire institutions that fail to do so. The Office of Research Integrity mentioned in the article would be an example.
* Professional societies, who have influence through journals they control and any standards they set for membership. While these can be international, they are unlikely to have any legal authority. They can kick people out/prevent them from being members, prevent them from participating in their conferences/journals, and bring attention by other entities with more direct control.
* Occasionally, some forms of plagiarism are also violations of legal constructs like copyright. There may be international norms, but these violations are ultimately dependent on whatever legal system has jurisdiction, typically a national or local court system. However, even these legal violations are far more likely to be resolved at another level first, such as a journal retracting a plagiarized article. Legal action is expensive and complicated and typically reserved for when other mechanisms (including *threat* of legal action) somehow fail.
The only international bodies I can think of are those that have a role only in setting guidelines/suggested standards; it's up to those who wish to uphold these guidelines to actually do so. An example would be [COPE](https://publicationethics.org/).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: *edit because of comments*
No, but there are national rules that are internationally harmonized and two general remarks why:
Nation States and to a lesser degree supranational bodies like the European Union are entities that make "laws", that is enforceable rules because of the existence of the rule of law. Not all states are fully committed to the rule of law. However, international treaties between states may establish rules, guidelines and regulatory bodies. The implementation and proper functioning are less likely.
**Some** incidents of Plagiarism - that is: taking ideas and words of other people and claiming them to be yours - is forbidden **for example** under copyright law, so only countries with legislation about copyright (may) have bodies to turn to. There are international treaties that try to establish minimum standards internationally: Have a look at the World Intellectual Property Organization (of the UN) that administers those treaties, you'll find information on member countries and there rules [there.](https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/)
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/07/15
| 1,245
| 5,411
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc at an european university and for the most part get along very well with my PI. However, one issue that can be challenging to deal with is her complete lack of organization. Very often she schedules meetings with people, me included, and then simply does not show up. Or shows up almost an hour late saying that things got in the way. It would be fine if it were something that happened once in a blue moon, but it is more the norm rather than the exception. I understand she has a lot to do, but I like planning my activities (lab work, writing, student supervising) and when I am told we will have a meeting, I adjust my week accordingly and when this happens it is very annoying to have to keep rescheduling everything to make time for the meeting that she herself had scheduled and missed.
When we do meet, we make decisions for analysis or experiments moving forward and then in the next meeting she forgets completely all that was decided and changes her stance on these things based on her mood I guess. Often she tells us doing analysis X is of utmost importance and it should be the number 1 priority. We do that and in the next meeting she says doing analysis X is not important at all, that we wasted our time and we should have done Y.
Having said all of that, I think it might be good to address this issue. However, I think it might be a bit of a delicate subject, so any tips on how to go about this would be appreciated. Or do you guys think I should just grin and bear it and not address this at all?<issue_comment>username_1: I was in a similar position with a very encouraging, very kind PI who did most of the things you mention. I still work with her and these are a few tips I've found on the way:
1. **Take a more formal approach to documenting meetings**. Write down key decisions with reasons when you agree what's to be done in the next week. If your PI changes her mind the next week you can ask what changed. It maybe something or nothing but will help clarify expectations.
2. **Take control of meetings when PI no-shows**. If the PI is going to be late get the stuff done which doesn't need her first. It's not a waste of time if you are being productive. Then when you have her attention be selfish and acknowledge to yourself that things are likely to overrun too. The flexibility may not come naturally to you but will help in future - academics are not known as a group for their tight organisational skills! Taking control of the meeting is good experience for you in your leadership development too.
3. **Do bring up no shows**. It is rude to no-show; especially if no apology is sent. You can ask if everything is okay and offer help. If you know that you cannot attend, make sure you tell everyone.
At the end of the day, this sounds a lot like a clash of expectations. To answer your direct question of whether to grin and bear it or address it -
I think two good choices would be (you could also do both!):
* **Take things on a case-by-case basis**. Choose your battles carefully. If your timetable is not too packed and you can be flexible, that can really help you get the help/advice you need. If meetings are missed can you suggest catch up meetings? These mainly involves changing your behaviours/expectations.
* **Talk to your PI and reset her expectations**. If you go in all guns blazing, this could end in tears, but a carefully-considered, constructive approach could really help. Maybe the PI thought the meetings were not so important. Maybe the PI thought she wasn't really leading the meetings. Maybe the PI didn't really see the problems she was causing. This will hopefully result in a better match of behaviours/expectations.
I now get along much better with my old PI but there are still times when things go wrong. These expectation settings, both individual and together, have helped a lot.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think its important to separate your two issues here.
1. No-shows without a message or apology is rude, whoever it is that is doing it. Stuff that is more important coming up does happen, and, as long as it is occasional, is just something we all have to put it with, but you should be informed in advance (even if it is, like 5 minutes before). Again, most people forget things from time to time, and as long as it's only occasional, and there is an apology, then its something we all have to live with. If both things are regular occurrences, and there is never warning nor apology, then that is a problem.
2. The PI forgetting about the project between meetings, and having differing opinions on different occasions is just the way it is. Most PIs mentor more projects than anyone can be expected to remember the details of, and its probably unrealistic to expect things to change so that they do remember them, irrespective of what you might say to them. There are various ways to deal with this. I know that running things via formal documentation/project management systems is one way. Another I've seen students use is to never do anything their supervisor says until they've said it on at least two consecutive occasions. The final solution, which is probably more appropriate for later-stage students is to listen carefully to the supervisor's opinion, consider it carefully, but in the end make up their own mind about what analyses are important etc.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/15
| 1,371
| 5,745
|
<issue_start>username_0: A couple of years ago, when I started publishing in my field, I received several requests of review from 4/5 different journals in a row. Because I happened to have free time, I submitted those reviews (done conscientiously, although in just one or two pages) in 24/48 hs. I know this is super fast. Then nobody has asked for my review in several months. I recently read that there was a scandal, I think in China, where journals discovered that reviewers answering in 24 hours were the authors themselves in disguise. My question is: are editors letting me rest? Were my reviews too short? Or, might they have mistrusted my reviews because they were too quickly done?<issue_comment>username_1: My first instinct is that this is improbable. I can imagine one journal with such a policy but think it unlikely that four or five would, or would communicate on this.
You could consider asking the editors of those journals. They might be pleased to find another willing reviewer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, the unusual thing is not that you haven't been asked to review recently but that you had a batch of review requests all at once.
Most journals that I have worked with, as either editor or reviewer, prefer to use the same reviewer no more than 2-3 times per year, in order to maintain a diversity of perspectives and in order to avoid burning out reviewers. If nothing happens across an editor's desk that makes them think of you, it could be years before a particular journal asks you to review again.
Referrals also play a role in being asked to review. Editors will often use at least one of the reviewers suggested by the authors. Also, if somebody declines a review due to being too busy, the editor will often ask the person declining for suggestions of alternate reviewers.
Thus, my guess is that you had an unusual coincidence of referrals early on, and that you've now reverted to a more normal rate of review requests. If you want to have more review requests, start spreading the word through your professional network, and people are likely to start pointing to you in their referrals.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I am not sure if you made the journals suspicions, but here is what I do when my reviews take extra-short or extra-long time. I let the editor know what is going on. For example, I just finished a long programing project and the referee task was a welcome change. Or, this paper relates to an active project so I needed to read this right away for other reasons. Or, in the other direction, I might say that I found part-way through the paper that I needed to review a math topic I had not worked on for a decade and the paper is fine. Even with this, communication does break down and editors end up mad at me.
I seriously doubt that any editor is going to be much concerned that one review came in fast. This happens sometimes for valid reasons. Just make it a habit of adding comments to the editor to let them know the context. Editors are humans.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Do journals avoid you as a reviewer if you are too fast?
>
>
>
No.
>
> might they have mistrusted my reviews because they were too quickly done?
>
>
>
No. Reviews are judged by the contents.
>
> are editors letting me rest?
>
>
>
Some journals do have a policy of not asking for more than one review every x months.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: *I can add a sample size of one from personal experience here:*
In my field (somewhere between physics and applied mathematics), the actual workload of a peer review is at most one day of work while the average time for peer review is one month. The main reason reviews take so long is that reviewers need to find time for the review during their other duties (this applies to every field).
When I started reviewing (on my own), I was handing in most reviews within a few days. (The main reason for this was that my other duties were long and flexible, so a task quickly done was a welcome change and whether I did the review immediately or after two weeks would delay my other duties all the same.) I consider my reviews to be thorough and certainly not overly positive.
As a result, I became an “emergency reviewer” for one big publisher. They never officially told me, but I clearly got only sent review requests where the authors had been already waiting an overly long time, e.g., because one of the original reviewers failed to deliver or they needed an additional opinion. Mind that I did not get review requests at a high frequency, but those which I got were only “emergencies”. Other journals continued to request me as a reviewer in a normal manner.
>
> Were my reviews too short?
>
>
>
It’s naturally hard to answer that. At least in my field and many others, reviewers are “trained” by starting to work on reviews collaboratively with an experienced reviewer (usually their supervisor). If you have undergone such a process, you should be aware what constitutes a good review in your field. If not, you might have committed mistakes that you don’t even notice.
>
> Or, might they have mistrusted my reviews because they were too quickly done?
>
>
>
Unless your review time was below the actual workload of a proper review, I doubt that. The usual hallmarks of bad reviews are being overly positive or negative or too superficial. I would expect that journals focus on these criteria, since bad reviews can also take a long time – many people have received useless two-sentence reviews after months of waiting. On the other hand, if a low-quality review coincides with a short delivery time, this should fuel any suspicions and bad impressions.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/15
| 824
| 3,700
|
<issue_start>username_0: I haven't really traveled since the Spring of 2020, and I will unlikely to do so within the next year or longer (not counting local visits within driving distance). These are all due to family and personal health issues, and it's hard to say how soon will situations change.
My field is applied/computation mathematics. Participating in conferences and visiting colleagues have been an important component in "working". It is even more important to me, since I'm in a very small department. Now these have all stopped.
Is it possible to maintain a career in mathematics with limited travel? If yes, how?
---
Additional background: I am recently tenured, and I have a developed a pretty good network of colleagues so that I'm still "talking" to people albeit not in person. I have plenty of questions to work on, and, for now, I have funding. Although I suppose this question may apply to many people.<issue_comment>username_1: All sorts of things happen virtually these days, from writing reports for scientific organizations to writing papers with colleagues to developing scientific software packages. I see no particular good reason why it should not be possible to have a productive scientific career without traveling at all, and I know colleagues who for family reasons have not been able to travel in any significant way for several years already.
The question is, for the most part, whether you have a scientific network that can sustain your research career for the next few years. That means having existing and finding potential new collaborators to write papers and proposals with, who invite you to give (virtual) seminar talks at their institutions, etc. This works pretty well for me, for example, never having written a lot of papers with people from my home institution to begin with. But it's a question about your past style of collaboration, and how willing and interested you are in getting yourself into new collaborations with new people.
In other words, I think it is possible and maybe not all that difficult either. At the same time, I can also totally see how for some people who are maybe more reserved, not being able to travel cuts them off from the rest of the scientific community. It all depends on your style of work and your existing network.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I've been forced to isolate a few times over the years, and things are much better now in terms of technology than even in 2017. Most academics have learned to use video technology, shared folders, shared editing etc. Some were previously motivated by climate change to reduce their travel, but it was the pandemic that really got things moving. There are many things you can do to stay connected, and having grant money will really help.
I have found that most sources of travel funding can be used to have others visit you just as well as for you to travel to conference. You can host a very small workshop and bring in a few people you work well with, or have them visit you one at a time. This assumes are are able to still meet in person locally. Ideally you have colleagues who can travel easily.
If you write joint papers, you can perhaps have your coauthor give talks and report back to you.
If you are in a field that uses conference proceedings as the leading form of publication, things are harder. I am not qualified to comment on that.
So, yes, you can do good research with little or no travel. I've been on restricted travel for many years. Certainly, little travel is easier than no travel. In some cases you can get extra funds to cover higher travel expenses. That depends on local factors so it is hard to be specific.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/15
| 1,047
| 4,760
|
<issue_start>username_0: If a paper is written by multiple authors, say in mathematics, where it is clear who did what, is there a way to find the specific contribution of an author?
For example, say a person name <NAME> solved a problem based on a lemma proved by another person, say, <NAME>, and in a parallel universe, they agreed to write the paper together, how do I, as a reader know, who did what?
If there is no way (whatever little I read, I could not determine), isn't it a big issue? Is there a way to solve this issue?<issue_comment>username_1: In general it is very difficult to sort out mathematical collaborations. The issue is that it is insight driven, not time in the saddle or effort or much of anything else, though effort can lead to insight.
But when two mathematicians talk to one another a sort of synergy can develop and a single, simple, comment can lead to a breakthrough, either in what is true or in how to demonstrate it. There can be a mutual ping-pong effect in which each comment leads to the next, and deep insight in both.
Sometimes authorship is due to someone you meet for coffee who answers a simple question with a simple answer that brings the insight.
Very infrequently such a coffee discussion might be described by one party or the other. Sometimes one party makes an hypothesis and another party proves it. Then it can be clear, but in many collaborations it is more synergistic and emergent. Organic, perhaps.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think either @username_1 or I are being obstructionists here... but only saying that fine-grained attribution is not usually possible... nor interesting to the parties involved!
As in an earlier comment of mine: I think that, in fact, many substantial mathematics papers are not "the thing itself", but are *narratives* of something, some chain of events, some discussions among the authors, etc. So "the paper" can often be somewhat artificial in format and voice. In particular, with some exceptions, the lemmas and theorems are just a way of formatting and organizing that narrative. That formatting and organization need not much reflect the authors' conceptions... but things have to be written out, and there are strong traditional rules about how things should be written out.
And, again, it seems that many mathematicians are somewhat allergic to the idea of discrimination among authors. Hence, alphabetical order of authors, and definitely no tradition of having the introduction tell who did what. With some exceptions, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The contribution of an author is often described in a letter of recommendation that supports an application of that author to a position. Of course, such letters are not made public, and they are seen by few people.
If you are not one of these people, why would you worry about specific contributions? Don't recommendation letters solve the issue for all or most practical purposes?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: People contribute to papers in many different ways that are not always easy to identify when the paper is actually written (neither by outsiders nor by the authors themselves), and as a consequence most people resist the idea of being to specific and explicit in providing a statement that breaks the contributions apart. For those journals that require them, you will find that these statements of who contributed what are often very short and not actually particularly specific. People use them as an affirmation that everyone who is an author is justifiably so, rather than a precise instrument.
Underlying your question is the assertion that being able to find out who did what in a paper would actually be useful. But I don't think that's actually true, at least from the perspective of the authors of a paper. In the end, everyone among the authors is better off if individual contributions remain murky, because that allows the authors to claim that they substantially contributed to the paper, and for letter writers to claim that one of the other authors contributed substantially -- and nobody can call them on the slight inaccuracy.
One might argue that it would be useful for *others* to see who did what in detail on a paper, for example hiring or evaluation committees. But then how do you compare someone who had the idea but did not put it into software and did not apply it to a data set; to the person who did these tasks; to the person who has a comprehensive overview of the literature and is a good writer and so did most of the writing and putting in context? It's hard to know how one would balance these contributions, and so I will claim that there is little to gain from knowing who did what exactly.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/15
| 1,390
| 6,191
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a master's student in physics, from outside the UK and I'm not familiar with the academic hierarchy/titles in the UK. I am working (remotely) with an academic from a prominent UK university, and we have been collaborating on a project for a few months now. I found out about him, through an advertisement for a PhD project listed on the university website. I did not get the position, but the project we are doing is different. In the past few months in interacting with him, he has also told me that he is looking to take PhD students in the next admissions cycle.
Now, I am unable to find him listed as a faculty member anywhere on the site. For example, he is listed under 'Research Staff' not 'Academic Staff' but he has also been awarded a prestigious fellowship. So under his webpage, it just says 'X Fellow' (not revealing the title for confidentiality), and it neither says postdoc, nor does it say reader or something, which I've seen commonly in the UK (in fact there are other people listed as postdocs under research staff as well). On his webpage in a field-specific research repository site, he is listed as a 'Junior', but I think this is a self-filled webpage.
1. How do I check if he is a faculty member or not? I'm confused since it is not officially listed anywhere (except for that research repository site) but the university has advertised PhD positions with him as the (sole) project supervisor.
2. Are 'research staff' in the UK at the same level of the academic hierarchy, with the exception that they don't teach?
The reason I ask is because I intend to ask him for a letter of recommendation when I apply for PhD programs again, and if he is 'officially a postdoc' then I'm afraid his letter may not be weighed equally with that of a faculty member. I'd also like to work on a PhD with him, but if he is not a faculty member, then I'd hesitate to apply to his project, should a project be floated under him again.<issue_comment>username_1: In general it is very difficult to sort out mathematical collaborations. The issue is that it is insight driven, not time in the saddle or effort or much of anything else, though effort can lead to insight.
But when two mathematicians talk to one another a sort of synergy can develop and a single, simple, comment can lead to a breakthrough, either in what is true or in how to demonstrate it. There can be a mutual ping-pong effect in which each comment leads to the next, and deep insight in both.
Sometimes authorship is due to someone you meet for coffee who answers a simple question with a simple answer that brings the insight.
Very infrequently such a coffee discussion might be described by one party or the other. Sometimes one party makes an hypothesis and another party proves it. Then it can be clear, but in many collaborations it is more synergistic and emergent. Organic, perhaps.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think either @username_1 or I are being obstructionists here... but only saying that fine-grained attribution is not usually possible... nor interesting to the parties involved!
As in an earlier comment of mine: I think that, in fact, many substantial mathematics papers are not "the thing itself", but are *narratives* of something, some chain of events, some discussions among the authors, etc. So "the paper" can often be somewhat artificial in format and voice. In particular, with some exceptions, the lemmas and theorems are just a way of formatting and organizing that narrative. That formatting and organization need not much reflect the authors' conceptions... but things have to be written out, and there are strong traditional rules about how things should be written out.
And, again, it seems that many mathematicians are somewhat allergic to the idea of discrimination among authors. Hence, alphabetical order of authors, and definitely no tradition of having the introduction tell who did what. With some exceptions, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The contribution of an author is often described in a letter of recommendation that supports an application of that author to a position. Of course, such letters are not made public, and they are seen by few people.
If you are not one of these people, why would you worry about specific contributions? Don't recommendation letters solve the issue for all or most practical purposes?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: People contribute to papers in many different ways that are not always easy to identify when the paper is actually written (neither by outsiders nor by the authors themselves), and as a consequence most people resist the idea of being to specific and explicit in providing a statement that breaks the contributions apart. For those journals that require them, you will find that these statements of who contributed what are often very short and not actually particularly specific. People use them as an affirmation that everyone who is an author is justifiably so, rather than a precise instrument.
Underlying your question is the assertion that being able to find out who did what in a paper would actually be useful. But I don't think that's actually true, at least from the perspective of the authors of a paper. In the end, everyone among the authors is better off if individual contributions remain murky, because that allows the authors to claim that they substantially contributed to the paper, and for letter writers to claim that one of the other authors contributed substantially -- and nobody can call them on the slight inaccuracy.
One might argue that it would be useful for *others* to see who did what in detail on a paper, for example hiring or evaluation committees. But then how do you compare someone who had the idea but did not put it into software and did not apply it to a data set; to the person who did these tasks; to the person who has a comprehensive overview of the literature and is a good writer and so did most of the writing and putting in context? It's hard to know how one would balance these contributions, and so I will claim that there is little to gain from knowing who did what exactly.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/16
| 640
| 2,826
|
<issue_start>username_0: I currently have a one year fixed term contract in the department where I studied for my PhD. It is due to finish in April. It is not ideal for my career development as it involves no opportunities for teaching. Recently another one year fixed contract has been advertised in the department which is ideal for me, absolutely my subject area and involves lecturing and all the duties that I would hope to develop. Is it bad form to apply, as it would mean leaving my current post in September if I was successful? It would give me an additional six months of work if I was successful however.
I don't want to get a bad reputation though! It is in the same department so my current boss would know I have applied.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think it is bad form to apply. Some people would say the same opinion but much more strongly.
Your boss should understand that a one-year postdoc is hard because you have to start applying for new jobs almost as soon as they start it. If they don't realize this you can tell them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Are you in the US? It is probably fine to apply, the new fixed term will not overlap with your current one it sounds like. But you should also apply outside of the university where you did your PhD. In the US, this doesn't look very good to stick around for two years. You want to do a postdoc somewhere else and establish some independence.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: #### It certainly is not bad form
It usually takes about six-months to go through a recruitment procedure in academia (sometimes longer), so if you're only on a one-year contract, it's not even bad form to start looking for your next position as soon as you start. An employer who offers you a one-year contract is not willing to commit to a long-term employment relationship --- in such a circumstance it is perfectly reasonable that you would be looking for alternative positions that offer you either a more secure position, or even just a continuance of employment beyond your present contract period. If they expect some greater loyatly from you, they can show you greater loyalty by offering a long-term or permanent position.
As to the overlap between the positions, it is usual in a recruitment process that the interviewer will want to know when you can start in the position if selected. It is widely accepted that you ought to be given the liberty of a reasonable notice period in respect to your previous position (e.g., four weeks), but in some cases you might have more wiggle-room than this (especially in this case, where they are at the same insitution). In cases where the recruitment process itself is slow, you are probbly going to be able to negotiate a reasonable period before starting, if that is something you want.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/16
| 1,009
| 3,955
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am about to begin my second master's degree in math in France. I am not from France; I did my first master's in my country.
In my course, master's thesis is in 2nd semester but I want to start working on it in 3rd week of August because I will apply to PhD positions in November and December in other European nations as well as France. My Potential advisors are not from France but other European nations.
**So, under French system can I have a advisor from another nation and can I start working early on the thesis?**<issue_comment>username_1: There is no definite answer to this question: each Master program or even curriculum within a Master program can define their own rules on how subjects and advisors for Master thesis work can be chosen by the student. From those that I know it could range from subjects and advisors only to be chosen in a defined list of subjects / advisors set up by the program to widely open as long as the subject of the thesis is in adequate relation with the topic of the program.
This information should be indicated on the program's curriculum. If you cannot find it, you should ask your question to the Professor or Associate Professor in charge of the program.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This isn't an answer, since I don't know the French system, but advice that might help.
My best guess is that this is uncommon, since the institution you are enrolled in has little influence over an external advisor and that person has little incentive, especially financial and time, to help you when you need it. And, an advisor from another nation is probably harder to arrange than one from another French institution.
So, make sure that you have permission to do this before you start, or even commit to a program. The head of the program is probably a good source of information and can give permission if it is possible at all.
Another option that could possibly be open is to have co-advisors, one from the "home" institution and one from away, where the home advisor is responsible for keeping all the duckies lined up and the external one for the actual advice to help you advance in field.
Starting the thesis research early is also a bit risky in case you can't come to an agreement on the topic and the plan with all of the interested parties. That doesn't mean that the effort is wasted in the long term, but without a specific agreement, you might be required to change focus, putting what you have already done on hold.
Be cautious. Talk to those with authority. Get permission. Good luck.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: This will depend wildly on the institution*s* and program*s* (both host and guest).
At my <NAME>, the [*Master Logique et Fondements de l'Informatique*](https://master.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/annee/m2-lmfi/) program stipulates:
>
> **Stage de recherche (mémoire de master)**
>
>
> *Vers le LMFI* : Les étudiants de master dans une université étrangère
> qui souhaitent faire un stage de recherche (mémoire de master) à
> l'Université Paris Diderot peuvent prendre contact avec X.
>
>
> *Depuis le LMFI* : Les étudiants du LFMI ont aussi la possibilité de
> faire leur stage (mémoire de master) dans une université étrangère (ou
> en codirection entre Paris et l'étranger). Les étudiants intéressés
> peuvent prendre contact avec Y.
>
>
>
It essentially says that you can do your research with them if you are in a different institution, and that you can do your research in another place.
But, in both case, the important point is that **you need to reach out to X or Y**. This will be essential, and cannot start too early: **having two institutions agree on the modalities of your thesis will be extremely complicated in some cases.**
As nobody here is going to list all the possible combination of institutions and program, I assume that this is the best answer you will receive: ask.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/16
| 691
| 2,818
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am studying <NAME>'s "Simulation Modeling and Analysis". It has 30 questions as exercises for Chapter 1. But our exams never ask for such things. They used to ask "exercises/problems/Numericals" in junior years. I personally love exercises and learn a lot by doing them. But the thing is if I start doing even 15 questions, it'd take me 1 week just to solve them(studying full day). So I don't think that's how they're supposed to be treated.
What should I do? I want to use these exercises to further my understanding of concept, but I don't know how do I do it? And yes, I love unsolved exercises. When I was in 11,12 class, I had the time and I solved >2000 unsolved and >1000 solved examples in those 2 years of physics and only I know how much better that made me a physics student.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, the purpose of exercises in textbooks (at any level) are to firm up the ideas in the book, give you practice in actually applying the ideas, and, hopefully, leading you to insights that a more passive approach likely won't.
Think of learning as an active sport, not a spectator sport. If you wanna win, you gotta get in the game. See, for example, the book *The Art of Changing the Brain* by <NAME>
You have been wise to focus on exercises in your past. I suggest that you keep it up. If the exercises/problems are now more challenging then that is a good thing. Do as many as you can manage, even if you can't do them all. In some books there is a progression in difficulty through the exercises. In some, adjacent problems are similar. Try to figure out if having done one, which one is best to next spend time on.
You can also ask a professor which exercises they think will benefit you most if you don't have time for all of them. This is especially valuable if they know you and your work already.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Traditional publishers do tend to push textbook authors to include more-and-more exercises... especially in second and subsequent editions.
This and other mechanisms tend to cause textbook authors to be sure to include every known related exercise. Sure, it would be ideal to know how to address all of them... but it would take a lot of time, as you note. And, I claim, it is not necessary to have done all of them to claim a modest grasp of the ideas. Here we might come to asking whether we want a "perfect (if naive) understanding of chapter one", or, rather, a "fairly good idea about chapters one through five". These are different approaches.
And, in my own experience, I have seen over and over that (even just partially-informed) hindsight makes lots of things completely clear in chapter one, not by directly addressing the formalism, but by finding out later what the *point* was. :)
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/16
| 1,301
| 5,855
|
<issue_start>username_0: For mathematical manuscripts, what makes the editor opt for a rejection rather than major revisions and vice-versa?
Usually, the editor determines the gravity of the mistakes within the manuscript. If they can be corrected in time, the authors are given the chance to revise and resubmit (major revision). But, if the mistakes can't be corrected in time. Then, a rejection decision is made.
The issue is that in the mathematical field, it is usually hard to determine whether the manuscript can be corrected in time or if the mistakes made are unfixable. Indeed, one can try a slightly different approach and fix the "grave" mistake in a short period of time. So, my question is what do editors rely on to decide that a mathematical mistake in unfixable no matter what and doesn't deserve a chance for a major revision.<issue_comment>username_1: For journal publication, time is of little importance other than for special issues. For conferences, time is of the essence. But if a paper isn't completed for the next issue or so, there is always the issue after that.
The main reasons for rejection are:
* Not consistent with the journal's policies or focus.
* Not sufficiently novel/interesting to publish (here). Or, these results are known already.
* Probably not fixable at all. Serious and fundamental issues.
A few others, I'd guess.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Journals do not accept all submitted papers which are correct. I find this a bit silly, but they continue to produce a fixed number of pages per year, and are trying to put the "best" articles they can manage in that number of pages. So, in general, editors will ask for a revision if they think that it is likely that the paper will be accepted after the revision, and will reject if they think it is not likely.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Rather than a direct answer to the question, the following is more of a frame challenge. I think the assumption in the question about why a mathematical manuscript can be rejected ingores a number of very relevant reasons.
First of all:
* The editor might come to the conclusion that the results or techniques in the manuscript are not sufficiently innovative to warrant publication in the journal to which the manuscript was submitted.
* On a similar note, the editor might consider the topic of the manuscript to be not sufficiently "interesting" (however the editor interprets this word) to warrant publication in this specific journal.
The above two cases will often result in desk rejection of the manuscript rather than peer review. It might, however, still be likely that the manuscript can be published in a different venue.
If, however, the manuscript makes its way to peer review, then the reviewer(s) will typically be asked to recommend whether the paper should be accepted, or revised, or rejected. The final decision will, of course, still be within the discretion of the editor, but in my experience, editors will often follow this recommendation.
Now, there are many potential reasons why the reviewer(s) might recommend rejection, even if they do not find an unsalvageable mistake in it:
* They could find that the results are not sufficiently "substantial", i.e. they might be more or less clear to experts in this particular field.
* The results and proofs might be written in a very sloppy way, which makes it extremely difficult to even determine if they are correct.
* The writing of the paper might just be outright bad, thus making it a real burden to even read the paper.
* It might turn out that the authors are completely unaware of large parts of the relevant literature.
The last three points might, in principle, be fixable, assuming that the authors take them seriously and put sufficient effort into it. However, this does not imply that the reviewers were necessarily obliged to recommend a revision of the paper instead of a rejection in such a case. A good reason to actually suggest rejection in some of these cases if the following experience that I made quite often when got the first requests to review papers:
The manuscript suffered from several of the issues mentioned above; I wrote a very lengthy report where I pointed out in detail all the problems that I encountered and suggested a major revision of the manuscript. The authors apperently took this as an encouragement that there paper were "close to acceptance", and instead of thoroughly improving the manuscript, the tried a "minimally invasive" approach to superficially deal with the issues I had raised, but did not make a real effort to substantially improve the paper - leading thus to yet another long report in the second round of review.
After I had become more experienced and already used to this pattern, I changed my recommendation practice. If a paper exhibits too many issues of the types mentioned above, I will typically point out several of them, include some general recommendation to the authors how they should improve their paper if they plan to submit it elsewhere, and recommend to reject the paper.
In such a case, recommendation for rejection (rather than for a major revision) clearly signals to the authors that, from my perspective, that paper is not close to being publishable - so much more work is needed to improve it than would be the case during a "major revision".
For the majority of papers which I, as a reviewer, recommend to reject, the reason for my recommendation is actually this "not close to being publishable" issue rather than non-fixable mathematical errors.
**TL;DR:** Apart from mathematical errors that cannot be fixed (or cannot be fixed within a reasonable time frame), there are many more potential reasons why a math paper can be rejected by the editor or recommended for rejection by the reviewer(s).
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/16
| 1,441
| 6,383
|
<issue_start>username_0: Context: I am a final year BSc. Math student (Europe).
I got some decent results in my first year, top of the class in Calculus I and II (with simple proofs), good results on basic Linear Algebra (determinant, systems, etc). But the second year has been brutal, I barely got through my Topology, Probability, Linear Algebra (Abstract), Abstract Algebra (Groups, Fields), Complex Analysis, Numerical Analysis(theoretical), Diff Geometry courses. Noted, the level of abstraction has considerably increased and no longer do the exams require simple, plug and chug formulas calculations.
What are some remedies to such a decline in performance? Higher level mathematics requires a lot of Theorem, Lemma, Corollary memorisation. I am trying memorisation techniques, writing statements on post it notes, etc.
Is there some applied mathematics specialisation that is suited for a student that excelled in Calculus, even some Real Analysis, has good spacial ability/memory but is mediocre(the grades happen to show this is not an understatement) at all the rest?
Grades is a motivation factor for me, it makes me feel fulfilled and relaxed. I am feeling quite frustrated and ashamed of myself (although I worked really hard), even scared higher level mathematics might not be for me( I was looking forward to enrolling in a MSc. in applied mathematics)?<issue_comment>username_1: For journal publication, time is of little importance other than for special issues. For conferences, time is of the essence. But if a paper isn't completed for the next issue or so, there is always the issue after that.
The main reasons for rejection are:
* Not consistent with the journal's policies or focus.
* Not sufficiently novel/interesting to publish (here). Or, these results are known already.
* Probably not fixable at all. Serious and fundamental issues.
A few others, I'd guess.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Journals do not accept all submitted papers which are correct. I find this a bit silly, but they continue to produce a fixed number of pages per year, and are trying to put the "best" articles they can manage in that number of pages. So, in general, editors will ask for a revision if they think that it is likely that the paper will be accepted after the revision, and will reject if they think it is not likely.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Rather than a direct answer to the question, the following is more of a frame challenge. I think the assumption in the question about why a mathematical manuscript can be rejected ingores a number of very relevant reasons.
First of all:
* The editor might come to the conclusion that the results or techniques in the manuscript are not sufficiently innovative to warrant publication in the journal to which the manuscript was submitted.
* On a similar note, the editor might consider the topic of the manuscript to be not sufficiently "interesting" (however the editor interprets this word) to warrant publication in this specific journal.
The above two cases will often result in desk rejection of the manuscript rather than peer review. It might, however, still be likely that the manuscript can be published in a different venue.
If, however, the manuscript makes its way to peer review, then the reviewer(s) will typically be asked to recommend whether the paper should be accepted, or revised, or rejected. The final decision will, of course, still be within the discretion of the editor, but in my experience, editors will often follow this recommendation.
Now, there are many potential reasons why the reviewer(s) might recommend rejection, even if they do not find an unsalvageable mistake in it:
* They could find that the results are not sufficiently "substantial", i.e. they might be more or less clear to experts in this particular field.
* The results and proofs might be written in a very sloppy way, which makes it extremely difficult to even determine if they are correct.
* The writing of the paper might just be outright bad, thus making it a real burden to even read the paper.
* It might turn out that the authors are completely unaware of large parts of the relevant literature.
The last three points might, in principle, be fixable, assuming that the authors take them seriously and put sufficient effort into it. However, this does not imply that the reviewers were necessarily obliged to recommend a revision of the paper instead of a rejection in such a case. A good reason to actually suggest rejection in some of these cases if the following experience that I made quite often when got the first requests to review papers:
The manuscript suffered from several of the issues mentioned above; I wrote a very lengthy report where I pointed out in detail all the problems that I encountered and suggested a major revision of the manuscript. The authors apperently took this as an encouragement that there paper were "close to acceptance", and instead of thoroughly improving the manuscript, the tried a "minimally invasive" approach to superficially deal with the issues I had raised, but did not make a real effort to substantially improve the paper - leading thus to yet another long report in the second round of review.
After I had become more experienced and already used to this pattern, I changed my recommendation practice. If a paper exhibits too many issues of the types mentioned above, I will typically point out several of them, include some general recommendation to the authors how they should improve their paper if they plan to submit it elsewhere, and recommend to reject the paper.
In such a case, recommendation for rejection (rather than for a major revision) clearly signals to the authors that, from my perspective, that paper is not close to being publishable - so much more work is needed to improve it than would be the case during a "major revision".
For the majority of papers which I, as a reviewer, recommend to reject, the reason for my recommendation is actually this "not close to being publishable" issue rather than non-fixable mathematical errors.
**TL;DR:** Apart from mathematical errors that cannot be fixed (or cannot be fixed within a reasonable time frame), there are many more potential reasons why a math paper can be rejected by the editor or recommended for rejection by the reviewer(s).
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/16
| 358
| 1,463
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does anyone know how being a journal peer reviewer affects the chance of getting a Ph.D. admission? Note that I majored in mechanical engineering.
I've published a few papers in some prestigious journals in my field. Additionally, I've reviewed papers for three journals (two Q1 + one Q2) for nearly three years. I have also been acknowledged as a **"star reviewer"** in one of the Q1 journals for two years.
Could anyone (preferably, a professor) tell me whether being a reviewer can increase my chance of getting a Ph.D. admission, to a prestigious university in the USA or not? Should I include these in my CV?
Many thanks<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it can help & certainly won't hurt, but there are some issues. You can list in your CV that you are a reviewer for *International Basket Weaving*, but it is hard to verify. And you can't, ethically, reveal which papers you reviewed in any blind process.
Don't overrate the importance, however. In the US, at least, other things, such as coursework, research, and letters from professors, are much more valuable and important. But every professional action is potentially helpful, at least at the margins.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are qualified to do peer review, you should have no problems getting admitted to a PhD program. You don't have to list it (since it should be obvious from the rest of your CV) but you might as well, because why not.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/16
| 254
| 1,085
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I conduct experiments including behavioral tests and laboratory tests and I analyse data. I also proof-read and help writing said research paper that later goes on to get published. Is it unreasonable for me to assume that I should I be an author?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it can help & certainly won't hurt, but there are some issues. You can list in your CV that you are a reviewer for *International Basket Weaving*, but it is hard to verify. And you can't, ethically, reveal which papers you reviewed in any blind process.
Don't overrate the importance, however. In the US, at least, other things, such as coursework, research, and letters from professors, are much more valuable and important. But every professional action is potentially helpful, at least at the margins.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are qualified to do peer review, you should have no problems getting admitted to a PhD program. You don't have to list it (since it should be obvious from the rest of your CV) but you might as well, because why not.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/17
| 656
| 2,703
|
<issue_start>username_0: A group of 5 colleagues and I are working on a collaborative education paper. We are compiling our various unique efforts and describing them within the context of a larger theme in this paper.
**How should we refer to [unpublished] work completed by just one of the 6 authors when writing the paper?**
For instance, we may use collective phrases such as "the *authors* believe..." throughout this collaborative paper. However, if one of the author's work is being highlighted/described in some area of the paper, it seems inappropriate to expand credit/ownership to all collaborating authors on this paper (i.e., using the collective "authors").
* For example, if I specifically (and *individually*) previously developed/employed an assessment tool being highlighted/analyzed in this paper, saying "the author***s*** employed an assessment tool" or "using an assessment tool created by the author***s***" seems disingenuous since only 1 of the authors (me) developed and employed this component.
I had considered the following approaches, but I did not feel confident they were the best choices:
* Using phrasing such as "one of the authors...". (feels too vague)
* Using passive voice without indirect object (e.g., "Intervention X was developed to foster...") also seems vague.
* referring to one of the author's names also feels kind of awkward -- I don't think I've ever seen a multi-author paper reference one of the authors by name in the paper. (outside of citing previous work).
Thoughts/suggestions?
(maybe the answer will vary based on discipline...)<issue_comment>username_1: If you use that phrase ("The authors believe...") throughout the paper and you don't disagree with the work of your colleague and co-author on their solo work, then just continue to use it.
But you need to actually cite it somewhere, probably as "work in progress" or similar with their name.
You might also consider a "contributions" paragraph in which you single out that colleague for the work on some particular thread.
For the tool, you probably should single them out specifically. Clarity trumps style for such individual efforts.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In [1], one of the current authors….
[1] <NAME>, *Underwater basketweaving in the Middle Ages*, unpublished.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Sometimes people use phrases like "the first author", "the second author", etc, to refer to a specific one of the present authors without stating their name.
>
> In separate work, the fourth author investigated the reticulation of splines.
>
>
>
You can also say "the fourth author of the present paper" if it makes it more clear.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/18
| 1,297
| 5,487
|
<issue_start>username_0: After a few months of wait, I received a brief response from a high-ranked physics journal regarding my manuscript: "The [Referee's] comments suggest that the present manuscript is not suitable for publication in XYZ", without further info, and the status of my submission changed to "With Author(s)". In addition, the Referee Report explains why s/he "do(es) not find this paper, in its present form, acceptable for publication in XYZ", and offers a number of pretty constructive and specific suggestions towards an improved version.
The Editor did NOT specify that I may resubmit, nor give me a timeline. What are your thoughts on this matter? I agree with all Referee's assessments and have indeed prepared a revised version in anticipation. Obviously I should resubmit. But a few questions:
1. Does my submission remain active so that I can resubmit?
2. Will it go to the same Referee or will it be treated as an brand-new submission/Referee?
3. I am not affiliated with any academic institution; this info was made clear in my first manuscript submission. How will that be handled and what consequences could it incur?
Thank you very much for your help!<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, this is a rejection letter. You need to find another outlet for your work. If you resubmit to the same journal, they will probably send it to the same editor who might just do a "desk-reject", meaning that it will be rejected without being refereed. It could also be rejected by an administrator.
Please be aware that the editorial process is not free of errors. Without reading the referee reports and your paper, it is not possible for us to decide whether this is one of these cases.
Not being affiliated with a university or other research agency will prejudice your paper, just because people without affiliation lack the support structure that such a position brings (e.g. colleagues who can read through a paper or with whom research can be discussed) and are less likely to meet the high standards for publication in a reputable journal. This is not how it ought to be, but editors are human beings and acquire certain "gut reactions" that might be wrong in a specific case.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Contrary to the [answer of tschwarz](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/187080/75368), I wouldn't treat this as a reject, but only a "major revision". It was tagged as "with author" after all.
You have a lot of work to do to make it acceptable, of course, and it is good that the reviewers gave you constructive advice.
The lack of a deadline is not material for most journal publications as future issues will require future papers. If yo can produce a good paper, it might be accepted and scheduled for some future issue.
A rejection would be clear. Don't make assumptions.
Whether it goes to the same reviewer or not is up to the editor, but it is fairly likely to go to at least one of them - perhaps the one who made the most extensive comments.
Lack of affiliation isn't an issue for a reputable journal. Scholarship isn't a private club with secret handshakes. The paper is what is important.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If the status is "with author" as opposed to "rejected", then it's a revise decision. Make your changes and submit it through the system. Yes it is probable that the original reviewers will check your revised paper. Not being affiliated with any academic institution [should have no effect](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/71503/can-i-publish-without-affiliation?) (in theory - in practice there might be subconscious bias).
Do not start a new submission; that only leads to an administrative hassle.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It sounds like this is one of the Physical Review journals, and the 'present manuscript is not suitable' message is one of their standard editorial responses that roughly corresponds to major revisions (although sometimes the required revisions are not so major). In my experience you can resubmit with a suitable response and the editor will likely send it out for review again to the same reviewers (if they are still willing to review). The fact that the status is ‘With Authors' rather than 'No longer under active consideration' also indicates they will likely consider a revised version.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: From your description, it looks like one of APS's journals.
1. As far as I know, this is often not a hard rejection. A rejection from those journals often sounds like 'we conclude that ... not suitable... close the process...'; and instead of 'With authors', it could become 'Not under active consideration' (no such status as 'Rejected'). But it depends on how many rounds you've been through. If it is only after the first round of review, pretty sure you can resubmit. If there are already two rounds, the chance gets lower but the tone still sounds not that bad.
2. You should definitely use resubmit instead of a new submission. Whether it will go to the same referees depends on their availability (no one knows) and whether you try hard to avoid them when you communicate with the editor (not your case, I guess). Usually people are willing to review again if not too busy. So in your case, it is quite probable it will still go to them.
3. Not much to handle as far as I know. And from your description, there seems not any noticeable prejudice you might be afraid of.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/18
| 1,554
| 6,946
|
<issue_start>username_0: Multiple affiliations are not uncommon in academia but often the second/*n*th affiliation is in name only. My question is about double affiliation where a person has active employment in both institutions to some degree (e.g., 70-90% at Institution A and 30-10% at Institution B). What are advantages/disadvantages of such arrangements?
---
(My hypothetical situation involves positions in different fields at Institutions A and B (both in EU but different countries) that have a positive view of such arrangement, but I would be very interested in reading answers of a more general setting, too.)<issue_comment>username_1: Towards other people, one possible disadvantage is the order of the affiliation is important, in papers' affiliation one may think that the current affiliation is the last one.
In general, one writes "now at" to explicitly state that ... but people unfortunately make a lot of assumptions.
Regarding private matters, if the funding is coming from both institutions, the overhead due to bureaucracy regarding holidays, HR matters, IT accounts and so on can rapidly grow to being from an annoyance to unbereable.
Therefore, I would suggest you to find a way to be employed by only institution A, while B pays your salary (+ overhead) to institution A. This way you keep the affiliation with B (it must be explicitly written in the agreement), while reducing your bureaucracy load.
I assume A is a laboratory and B is an university: the biggest advantage is you can get "access" to students from institution B. Otherwise, unless you have academic goals (i.e. becoming a professor), being employed by an university and at a laboratory is a pain in the neck: you have no additional advantage/stability from
being a researcher at the uni, but you have additional duties.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Advantages:
* **Potentially higher salary.** In Europe, it's generally possible to hold more than 100% worth of positions at one time (e.g., 100% at institution A and 20% at institution B would be fairly common). In such an arrangement, one advantage would be higher overall salary.
* **Being able to apply for grants in two countries.** Being affiliated in several countries can give access to more funding opportunities. That's especially the case as funding agencies often limit the number of grants that one can apply for at one time.
* **Being able to supervise students at all levels in two institutions.** Students from the two institutions might have complementary skill sets and could be used interchangeably for projects (e.g., sending students from A to B for their thesis projects).
* **More networking and collaboration opportunities.** Typically, both institutions would expect that you spend some amount of time there in person (for the downside of that, see below). Spending time at your home institution naturally leads to interactions, which could strengthen one's network and lead to collaborations.
Disadvantages:
* **Travel overhead.** Typically, both institutions would expect that you spend some amount of time there in person. Two issues with that: First, traveling and accommodation may be expensive (but the institutions might be willing to cover that). Second, traveling may have a non-monetary cost (harder to maintain a satisfying personal life as one is "living in two countries").
* **Being a frequently absent supervisor.** Supervised team members (Ph.D. students, post-docs) at the "second" institution need to arrange themselves with having a frequently absent supervisor. While regular online supervision meetings can make up for that to some extent, some students clearly prefer a present supervisor, especially at the beginning of a Ph.D. project or post-doc, where there might be more need for guidance and informally bonding with the supervisor (e.g, having lunch together).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Perhaps your situation is different, but when I've encountered people with these sorts of "split" appointments, it isn't as if they were weighing as options two alternatives: full appointment at A, or split appointment at B+C (where A could be the same as B or C) and considering the advantages/disadvantages of a split appointment. Rather, the split was *solving some problem* or *fulfilling some otherwise unachievable goal*. The advantage, therefore, is that it solved the problem; any disadvantages are secondary to the problem that is solved, and are mostly issues of convenience.
To give some examples from people I've worked with (and some of these circumstances are quite common and apply to multiple people):
* The primary salary is paid by a hospital or similar clinical organization, and is a clinical-only role. Research is performed under a separate appointment with a university. There are no other options to do both clinical work and research at those institutions.
* A separate appointment is required to have access to some particular facilities important for research such as medical imaging equipment, clinical staff, or data. The latter is particularly relevant for large, institutionally supported research studies where there is no realistic alternative to do the same work somewhere else.
* Someone has a grant for a multi-year project, and is hired to a new position elsewhere they would like to take. The only way to maintain their previous grant and comply with institution/grant agency guidelines is to keep a partial appointment at the old institution, possibly in another country.
* A dual appointment is necessary to supervise graduate students in the other program/department/institution. This may be similar to the previous example, where an appointment is maintained in order to complete supervision for some students at a previous institution, or it may be forward-looking, especially for separate appointments within the same institution.
In these circumstances, there may certainly be an institution that acts as the "primary" one, but I would dispute the "in name only" characterization: even the non-primary institution is an important association that is necessary for all or a substantial portion of the researcher's work.
For your case, I'd ask myself: what goal are you trying to solve? Is solving that goal worth the additional administrative demands on your time, keeping two "bosses" happy, possible conflicts of interest, etc? I think the specific disadvantages are too situation-specific to name. It's likely if the goal is sufficiently important, none of that other stuff will matter in comparison. If it's unimportant or a mere matter of convenience, all the extra inconvenience will add up quickly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If you are not a full-time employee in the US, there might be benefits issues involving things like health insurance, retirement contributions, tuition benefits, ....
Earning in two countries may also involve tax considerations.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/18
| 1,262
| 4,154
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to present my data with standard errors. The two might not be in the same order. Can I use different decimal places in one paragraph/paper like the below example? Or should I keep the same decimal places throughout?
>
> The production steadily increased from 3 ± 1 million metric tonnes
> (MT) in 2000 to 6 ± 0.4 MT in 2019, with rising net exportation
> from 0.2 ± 0.04 MT to 1 ± 0.1 MT over the same period.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: At first glance, this looked a bit weird to me, and I had to think about it. I presume that your measurements do not support more decimal places. It would help if you mentioned this restriction. If you measurements support more decimal places, it would look better if you use the same number of decimal places in both. Of course, I was educated in Germany and customs there are a bit different than in the US. For example, I was taught that 5 is different from 5.0 because the latter shows the precision to which measurements were made.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: No. Please be consisten throughout all your paper.
In [a comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187084/is-it-ok-to-have-different-decimal-places-when-presenting-different-data-in-a-pa/187088#comment503988_187087) you state (emphasis is mine):
>
> For instance, **6 ± 0.4 MT actually is 5.8 ± 0.4** MT, or 5.83 ± 0.42 MT
>
>
>
Do not take it personally, this is horrible science. Please stop doing that. Science is already seen by the layman as another form of religion, doing thing with such poor rigour will just enforce that feeling.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I don’t see much sense in giving the observables in a different precision than their confidence intervals:
* If you are giving a confidence interval, this is replacing the number of digits as an indicator of accuracy. Thus, you do not need to worry about the number of digits being misinterpreted.
* Your confidence intervals actually impose a higher accuracy. For example, take “1 ± 0.1”. Even in the most lenient interpretation, “1” can be anything between 0.95 and 1.5. That’s at least twice your confidence interval! Suppose I repeat your measurement and obtain 1.5 ± 0.1. This would agree with your result, if it is actually 1.4 ± 0.1, but considerably differ if yours is 1.0 ± 0.1. If your presentation doesn’t allow for this comparison, that’s pretty bad.
And just to avoid a misunderstanding: You do not need make different values of the same dimension have the same accuracy if the uncertainty doesn’t call for it. If you present one result as “37 ± 3” and another as “1.23 ± 0.15”, there is nothing wrong with that.
Sidenote: I would usually avoid giving an error as “± 0.1”, because there is a huge margin of inaccuracy in that presentation as well. It can be anything between 0.095 and 0.15, which can be a considerable difference. As a rule of thumb, I give the confidence interval with two significant digits if the first significant digit is 1 or 2, and one digit otherwise. I then give the value with as many digits as the confidence interval.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: The rule of thumb I learned about presenting measurements and standard deviations in the 1980s:
* give the standard deviation with 2 significant digits,
* give the mean with decimal places matching the deviation.
[ There might be exceptional, rare situations where you want to give the standard deviation with 3 or more digits, but that's only justified if you can really compute the standard deviation with such accuracy. ]
Examples:
* `5.83 ± 0.42`: okay
* `325.83 ± 0.42`: okay
* `325.8321 ± 0.0042`: okay
* `325000 ± 4200`: okay, two trailing zeros are there just to give the correct magnitude
* `5.80 ± 0.20`: okay, expressing that it's not e.g. `5.84 ± 0.16`
* `5.8 ± 0.2`: not okay, can be anything like e.g. `5.84 ± 0.16` or `5.75 ± 0.24` which makes quite a difference
* `6 ± 0.42`: not okay - if 6.00 is meant, that should be stated explicitly
* `5.831234567 ± 0.419876543`: not okay - you'll hardly ever be able to calculate a standard deviation up to 9 digits
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/18
| 843
| 3,643
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduate student focused on a subdivision of theoretical physics. When I am browsing papers, I find out an interesting case about the author's name ranking:
Let's assume there is a professor A (tenured) and B is a Ph.D. student supervised solely by A (which means there is no co-advising). There are plenty of published papers where the author list is made by only A and B. In my previous understanding, the first author is often given to the student(s) and the professor can be safely placed on the last of the author list to claim the achievement, as long as the professor acts as the corresponding author. However, the reality is that A is placed in front of B among most of their published papers (so the author list is: [A, B]), except for one paper where there are some other collaborators (i.e. [B, X1, X2..., A]).
I can't help figuring out **the motivation for a professor to claim the first authorship over his own student**. One of the reasons I could imagine is that student B cannot come up with meaningful research ideas or cannot carry out research independently. However, B has published X papers with A already (X>3) in some high-impact journals, and B's personal publication record is also promising (has more than 10 publications).
Can anyone share their thoughts about this situation? I have never seen such an interesting and unique case for the authorship arrangement.<issue_comment>username_1: Customs differ between disciplines. In pure Mathematics, author lists tend to be strictly alphabetically ordered. In Computer Science, your ordering is used. If the professor's name comes after the student's in alphabetical order, it might be that the professor feels that the professor's contributions outweigh the student's so that it would be deceitful to put the student's name first. Given the closeness of Theoretical Physics to Pure Mathematics, I assume that alphabetical ordering is used.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It's because for those papers, it's the profesor who deserves the first authorship.
In my field (not physics), the first author is usually the person who did most of the work and wrote the paper, so if a professor is first, it might mean they did work that would warrant the first authorship to anybody. Expecting professors to not be first authors would mean they are destined to only consult and supervise projects. Just because someone is a professor, that doesn't mean they need to give every idea they have to a student to fully develop.
Careerwise and CWwise, first authorship is better than middle authorship, but in my field, the last authorship is more prestigious than the first, so it would make more sense to move the student to be the first author, however, this might not be the case in theoretical physics and it's probably not the case for papers with only 2 authors. In any case, putting someone as the first author, even when they didn't do the first author's work, would be considered unethical.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Publication history is irrelevant here. What matters is the contribution to the *current* manuscript. It may be that the person who did the heavy lifting is the senior person, and they feel no student did enough to warrant being first author.
This happens when one persons had major input in identifying the calculation to be done, actually starting the calculation, interpreting the result of the calculation, and/or writing the manuscript (or combinations of the above) whereas others had only minor input.
The message here is that, if you want to be first author, you have to earn it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/18
| 598
| 2,620
|
<issue_start>username_0: When I'm casually browsing through bibliography section of preprints, sometimes I find that an author will also include the DOI information in the citation.
For example, I just picked a random Arxiv paper from today: <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.06887.pdf>
Observe that in the citation section, some references have a DOI attached to it, but others do not.
I've observed this in many preprints and publications.
1. Is there a good reason to add the DOI information?
2. Why is it that sometimes certain references have DOI information, but others do not? Is this a citation consistency issue?
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: it's good practice to include DOI links if the author/publisher can find them. Lots of stuff doesn't have a DOI but where one is available it's important that it persistently links to the content that the authors intended.
Disclosure: I work for Crossref (a nonprofit registration agency of the DOI Foundation) and we have about 130 million DOI records.
Publishers and others (about 17k of them as of today) join Crossref and commit to keeping the metadata up to date and ensure those links keep resolving in perpetuity.
Hope this helps!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. Yes, because it makes it easier to find the referenced document, but not all documents have an associated DOI.
2. In an arXiv submission, there's no guarantee of consistency, because this is up to the authors. For instance, the authors may have compiled the list of references from references downloaded from publishers' websites, which typically contain the DOIs, and manually inserted references from different authors, which might not be consistent. Instead, when publishing in a journal, the copy editor typically tries to ensure consistency according to the publisher's guidelines (well, the world is not ideal and not all do, but some certainly work reasonably well), either by adding the missing DOIs or other information themselves or asking the authors to make the additions.
3. A lot of software packages used to help researchers manage their resources (take genei.io) can use the DOIs to look up related papers and build relationship graphs that help when performing a literature search. This is beyond the obviously useful property of simply being able to generate a clickable link for you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Frankly, it's probably just a matter of some output formatting of reference manager software. If the doi is in the database, it gets included, otherwise it gets left blank. On journal publication, page editors might demand better.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/18
| 1,945
| 8,085
|
<issue_start>username_0: I posted new theorems and proofs on [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com).
Weeks later, someone else submitted the same results to a Springer journal and the paper was accepted.
How can a publisher like Springer publish stolen results before verifying if they already exist or not? The funny thing is that both of the authors know that these results are mine and one of them kept asking me if I want to publish them together with their results in one article and I declined, as I planned to include them in my second book. Therefore, it is clear this is not a case of simultaneous discovery — the authors were aware of my work and copied it exactly.
What should I do? Thank you.
---
**Update 29 Jan 2023**: The article was retracted about two weeks ago<issue_comment>username_1: How it happens is that nobody at Springer (editors, reviewers, ...) were made aware of the situation in a timely manner. I doubt that there was malice from a company that wants to maintain its reputation. There may be a lack of due diligence, of course, but it is just about impossible to know everything that has been published. And, "publishing" in a question on SE is a bit obscure in the larger world. It might require serendipity if one of the reviewers was a member here. Also, math formulae are very difficult for search engines, complicating due diligence further.
To try to solve the problem, contact Springer directly and lay out your case. A retraction might happen or other facts might come to light. But the authors have likely plagiarized you if you weren't given credit.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I suggest you write a formal letter to the editors of the journal. But you will need to state only facts and not opinions.
In your letter, give the link to your Mathematics Stack Exchange post. Point out that it was published before the paper in question was received by the journal.
You say "*both of the authors know that these results are mine*." Do you have evidence of this (an e-mail, perhaps)? If so, then include the evidence in your letter.
Request the editors to acknowledge receipt of your letter. You will need evidence that the editors received it. Otherwise, if the editor is unethical and perhaps a close friend of the authors, they will claim that they never received your letter.
It is not enough that you posted your results before their paper was received by the journal. It is possible that they were the ones who created the results, they showed it to you, and you posted it online (before they could submit it to the journal) claiming it was yours. That's why they didn't mention your name in the paper. How do you convince the editors that you are telling the truth?
You need to provide *evidence*, but note that evidence can be *falsified*, and that evidence is not *proof*.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The matter will need to be dealt with by the publisher and editors together, so the standard first step is to contact the publisher or an editor or both. The publisher and editors should be in communication with each other, so it shouldn't matter which you choose to contact, but the editors will have more specialized mathematical expertise to give an initial opinion on whether there has been any academic wrongdoing.
The onus is on you to prove your case: one is innocent until proved guilty. This means you need to explain clearly why you believe that you should have received acknowledgement for your work. If equations, phrases or sentences are the same, state precisely which equations, phrases or sentences are the same. If specific ideas used are the same, describe how. You can't expect a reader to spend a long time searching for similarities, particularly for equations that require specialist understanding.
Springer is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). When one of their journals receives concerns of plagiarism, they should follow the COPE guidance for [plagiarism in a published article](https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/plagiarism-published-article).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It is strange, isn't it, how they will acknowledge to your face that they got it from you with a sunny smile and then turn around and do a thing like this.
**Philosophical** answer: you are a brilliant person with lots of good ideas, and you don't mind sharing them on a public forum, even if that means other people will snatch them from time to time. Such folks must themselves be low on good ideas, if they really need to cobble together an academic career out of other people's accomplishments.
**Pragmatic** answer: take this up with the handling editor. Your email must be high on detail (include all the links and dates that *prove* it was you first) and low on whining and complaining, since that person will probably find the whole thing distasteful anyway.
**Political** answer: I know I always get downvoted for bringing this up, but the old boys network does exist, it is a fact of life, and handling editor and stealing author may be friends... in which case you may lose the war even if you win the battle.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: This answer takes everything in the question at face value.
The actions of the authors will not be looked upon favorably by the journal or the StackExchange network.
You would be able to prove that the ideas have been taken from your post. Besides your email/other correspondence with the authors (hopefully this is recorded), similarities between content, terminology, symbols etc. should be adequate to build your case. Once this is done, the authors run afoul of journal requirements (not to plagiarise) and the StackExchange policy of sharing attribution to any content taken from here (more on this ahead).
As such, the journal should take some action, either requiring that your work be cited or that the paper itself be retracted. Whether or not they do this depends on many factors, such as the journal policy, the editor's conscientiousness, the strength of your argument and so on. The authors should, in my opinion, face some censure (at the least) for indulging in malpractice.
However, my primary concern is something else that you stated :
>
> as I planned to include them in my second book
>
>
>
You should know that **anything** posted on the [SE sites is automatically shared](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/) under a cc-by-sa license. This means that anyone is free to share (copy, redistribute) and adapt (remix, transform, build upon - **even commercially**) content from here, provided that the post-creator is attributed (by author name and by mentioning that the content was posted to SE). Details about attribution [here](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/) and cc-by-sa [here](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
In your context, this means that your proofs could legally be used by anyone, so long as they mention that you posted it to SE at a certain link. They are free even to put this in their book and sell that book commercially. By 'remix', I suppose they could simply change some terminology, and then claim that they have 'built upon' your work, perfectly legally.
So while your indignation at being cheated out of credit is justified, your proofs posted online may not be quite as secure as you imagine. We all have different stands on how freely work should be shared, so this may be quite alright with you. To me, it would be a bit naive to share something under a cc-by-sa license when I intend to ultimately put that in a textbook.
However, @BryanKrause has pointed out that this may not be quite as naive as I thought. You, as the creator, are allowed to relicense SE content (when you put it in a textbook, for example). What you have already put out (on SE) can always be used by others under the original cc-by-sa license though. More details on this [here](https://libguides.valenciacollege.edu/c.php?g=1049946&p=7621176).
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/18
| 1,074
| 4,165
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to replicate a certain paper, which derived an important formula based on five other papers.
In order to do a correct replication with insight into sources of error, I need to gather all five papers. However, ALL the methods I have used have resulted in nothing.
A typical answer would be "ask your librarian" or "ask the authors," however my librarian is famously incompetent (can't even speak English, and given the exact bibliographical data, found a completely irrelevant paper), and also it is realistic to assume all the authors are dead.
Now, in my replication work I have to say something like "I cannot estimate the source of error, because the original papers are lost."
How should I do this? I checked Academia StackExchange, but the [closest search result](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20318/how-can-i-express-i-cant-find-any-papers-written-about-this) asks about phrasing negative search results for papers on a particular topic, whereas I am sure that the papers exist. There is also [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/134634) about how to continue my literature search, but I am asking about how to proceed if the search fails.<issue_comment>username_1: As a partial answer, you might need to cite *secondary source*.
For example, under [APA style](https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/referencing/apa7/indirect-cite#:%7E:text=Add%20%22as%20cited%20in%22%20before,found%20the%20quotation%20or%20idea.) this is:
>
> An indirect citation or secondary source is when the ideas of one author are published in another author’s text but you have not read or accessed the original author’s work.
>
>
> Include both the original author and year and the author and year of the work where quote/idea was found in the in-text reference.
> Add "as cited in" before the author in the in-text reference. For example - (Harris, 2009, as cited in Lewis, 2019).
> In the reference list, provide the details of the work in which you found the quotation or idea.
>
>
>
However, this does not help you verify the original equations. Maybe look up more papers that cite the original papers?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The answer is still "ask your librarian". You say your librarian is famously incompetent, but that shouldn't be disqualifying - you can still ask a different librarian. If your library only has one librarian, you can still ask a librarian from another library, or the publishers of the article if they're still around.
Don't underestimate the extent of what librarians have access to, e.g. the British Library has a copy of *every single book* ever published in the UK, comprising hundreds of millions of books, plus several hundred thousand journals. Someone will almost surely be able to find the articles for you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Just state exactly what the problem you encountered was and what you tried.
Something like
"an attempt was made to procure the paper by XYZ in order to estimate the error. Although database X, database, Y, and database Z, were searched, and the library services of ABC were consulted, we were unsucessful at obtaining a copy of this paper. Therefore, error analysis of the original paper could not be performed".
BTW, I wouldn't be so fast at assuming someone is incompetent. It sounds more like a lack of patience on your part.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you have a goal to reach and to reach that goal you rely on a single incompetent professional figure, I wonder if it is more incompetent that figure or the way you follow to get that goal accomplished.
[As @username_2 answered](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/187124/128758), there are more libraries to ask to.
Write a nice email to some other libraries that are even tangentially involved in the topic or that share the authors affiliations. If I have to cite a paper from an author that performed some research at the University of Aganawawa, there is a non-zero probability that the library of the University of Aganawawa has some interests (and duties) in helping you find the results of that research.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/18
| 631
| 2,794
|
<issue_start>username_0: Almost all journals I have published so far have required either Word or LaTeX source files after acceptance (but with present-day OCR technology it is straightforward to generate Word or LaTeX files from a PDF). Thus, where and how to find journals that are content with just a PDF (or a link to a pre-print repository) for their final submission?
EDIT: The reason I am asking this is because a \*.tex file can be compiled in different ways and what worked on creation, need not work at the production team's office. And the need to submit separate source graphics when it is already possible to embed it in a high-quality PDF seems superfluous.<issue_comment>username_1: There are journals called overlay journals. All the formatting is done by the author which can be a lot of work. Anyhow, you can look on the web for overlay journals.
I have never heard of a journal that takes a PDF, reverse engineers a latex file and proceeds from there. Simple equations perhaps can be dealt with, but OCR is going to have a hard time dealing with kappa vs k, double subscripts, commutative diagrams, that sort of thing.
Also, most authors do not know enough about color-space conversion to deal with images correctly.
I think there should be more overlay journals, but be aware these are not exactly friendly to authors. You have to make it look good, and if you fail, whom are you to blame?
Added later: The journal I am familiar with, SIGMA, seems to have changed how they work (or I just forgot). I think they do fiddle with your latex file.
<https://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/about.html>
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The premise of the question is triply false.
1. It is NOT trivial to convert technical documents to OCR in a systematic way. OCR works for 99% of the regular text (enough for indexing and searching) but still struggles with small fonts, specialized fonts, indices and the placement of indices, and a lot of the technical stuff that goes into technical writing.
2. Many journals that accept .tex files have publicly available LaTeX templates, style files and packages that will produce local versions very close to the eventual published version. All the journals I know also handle various external packages or are explicit about packages they do not handle.
3. Producing a pdf does not guarantee the published version will be identical to the submitted version. Most editors have house rules to enforce some measure of uniformity between articles when it comes to referencing, figures, tables, and the labelling of them, abbreviations, or use special sets of fonts which inevitably lead to small changes between the final accepted version and the production version. (Even overlay journals have house rules.)
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/07/18
| 990
| 4,196
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose two candidates are applying for the same position with **more or less** similar research backgrounds and topics.
One has a 3-year Ph.D. degree (say, from Swansea University, Wales, UK); the other has a 4-years Ph.D. degree (say, from UW, Warsaw, Poland).
**For the sake of argument**, if all other factors (e.g., number of publications, the reputation of the P.I., etc.) are **ignored**, is there any difference between a 3-years and a 4-years Ph.D. in the case of a research career? I.e., does the person with a 4-years Ph.D. hold more weight as a candidate?<issue_comment>username_1: Given just what you say, there is no difference, because a full analysis of each candidate will depend on many things as well as these.
But, a 3 and 4 year degree might start with different preconditions, leading to a shorter or longer time for completion. Too many variables. And there is even more reason for skepticism if the programs are in different countries. The education systems can vary widely between countries with some topics deemed essential taught earlier and others later in different countries. In particular, a program might require more than research as is true in the US (qualifying exams, for example).
And, the quality of the research is more important than the counts.
"All other factors the same" is pretty much impossible. We aren't machines. Institutional "fit" is even something considered by evaluators.
Trying to reduce faculty evaluation to an algorithm is probably a losing proposition. People contribute in different ways, some of them incapable of such comparison.
Twelve quality publications is pretty impressive, and may be unattainable early on in some fields.
However, beware of any program that puts a maximum time to completion with no options for extension. Research can take longer than anyone predicts at its start. Maximum time to completion is different from a fixed number of years of funding, however.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **If all other factors are the same**, then 4 years is better than 3 years, because you can always be quicker than the planned time, so you have safety about knowing you will have money and support for 4 years, but you can be quick and finish the PhD in 3 years.
Because if 3 and 4 years have the same factors, it means that the same PhD can be done in 3 or in 4 years.
I hope your PhD is not in logic or any related topic, though.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Silly question.
Is a four year PhD with 20 publications more valuable than a 4 year PhD with only one publication? If the publication of the latter is groundbreaking and the publications of the former are so and so. Guess who will have the better offers ...
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: As long as you finish "on time" (which depends on country and discipline), no one cares how long you spent in a program. What matters is your publication record, your letters, and your research program. And in some cases, your teaching experience. So the factors you have excluded are exactly the ones that matter. The only possible exception I can think of *might* be the case of an unusually young candidate, who *might* be considered to be more hireable when they're a year older.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: The name recognition of the program and the strength of the thesis are more important than the time they take to complete in two very different university systems. Even in Europe, education is sufficiently different among countries (and sometimes among the states of the country) that comparisons are not easy. If the four year degree means more in actual skills, than the program recognition would be higher, assuming that the program is well known. (If the Liechtenstein Ph.D. were seven years and only given for outstanding achievement, this doctorate would not be well enough known to make a difference.) For hiring, you can assume that the thesis and the publications will be scrutinized. If the hiring is for a commercial settings, they often have their own testing procedures, so that the doctorate title only gets an applicant into the pool of applicants.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/19
| 1,594
| 5,188
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to write the following sentence:
>
> The space *O*(*X*) (*O*(*Y*)) has functions defined on it as *g*(*x*)–*f*(*x*) (*g*(*x*)–*f*(*x*)).
>
>
>
By which I mean:
>
> The space *O*(*X*) has functions defined on it as *g*(*x*)–*f*(*x*) and the space *O*(*Y*) has functions defined on it as *g*(*x*)–*f*(*x*).
>
>
>
But the parentheses are kind of distracting to read. What should I do about it?<issue_comment>username_1: This is a style question, so there is not going to be a uniform answer that everyone agrees on. Some people use (and some journals seem to prefer) nested parentheses just like in your examples. I personally find this both esthetically unappealing and often hard to parse.
My practice (and this seems to be followed by a fair number of journals in the mathematical sciences) is to use delimiters in running text the same way that I would in mathematical expressions. For a expression like the one given in the question,\* that would mean
>
> The space O(X) [O(Y)] has functions defined on it as g(x) – f(x) [g(x) – f(x)]....
>
>
>
I find that more readable than text that involves the same delimiter repeated (even if the text and math parentheses are in different fonts). Moreover, this continues with further delimiters in the pattern
>
> **{ [ (** { [ ( ) ] } **) ] }**
>
>
>
so that, for example, if a parenthetical includes a mathematical expression with square brackets, it would be marked off with French brackets, e.g.
>
> This is the largest the function can grow {assuming, as before, that Δ[sin(x)/x] remains within the unitarity domain}, so we can conclude...
>
>
>
\*Actually, this expression, even with the square brackets has the potential to be confusing. As a general rule, in any situation where you are using multiple delimiters like this, it is good to look to see whether you can tweak what you have written to make it more readable. For example, I think your statement would be still easier to follow with the following added clarifications:
>
> The space O(X) [respectively, O(Y)] has functions defined on it as g(x) – f(x) [respectively, g(x) – f(x)]....
>
>
>
(Maybe the second "respectively" is superfluous, but it probably doesn't hurt.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: @username_1 gives a good answer, highlighting that it is a style question for which people have different preferences. I personally don't like to use anything other than round parentheses, so my preferred approach to avoid the confusion is to use additional words as buffer:
>
> The space O(X) (or, alternatively: O(Y)) has functions defined on it as g(x)–f(x) (alternatively: g(x)–f(x))...
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Your example is weird, as people have said, because both have functions defined as g(x)–f(x). If this is really what you want (TBH it sounds as if you do not quite understand what you're trying to do) you could just say: spaces O(X) and O(Y) both have functions g(x)–f(x) defined on them.
More generally, it is better to write: *the dah-dah has a dee-dee. Similarly, the pah-pah has a bee-bee* rather than *the dah-dah (pah-pah) has a dee-dee (bee-bee)*. I understand you aim to avoid boredom and annoyance on the part of the reader, but the extra verbiage is usually worth the clarity gained. Only when the reader is seeing all this for the umpteenth time, would I use the parentheses construction.
Putting *respectively* or *or else:* in the parentheses is helpful, but at that point your wordiness is about the same as the one at a time construction, so why bother?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As [<NAME>](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958/federico-poloni) points out, it is [customary](https://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/2058743.html) in mathematics writing to use "respectively", abbreviated as "resp.".
This gives, for your example:
>
> The space O(X) (resp. O(Y)) has functions defined on it as g(x)–f(x) (resp. g(x)–f(x)).
>
>
>
Readers used to mathematical writing will have absolutely no issue with this sentence, and they will easily "skip" over the parenthesis without being distracted.
---
You can even "chain" them:
>
> The space O(X) (resp. O(Y), O(Z)) has functions defined on it as g(x)–f(x) (resp. g(y)–f(y), g(z)-f(z)).
>
>
>
---
That being said, your sentence is weird (no Y / y in the second part of the sentence), since it seems that O(X) and O(Y) are defined the same way: do you mean
>
> The space O(X) (resp. O(Y)) has functions defined on it as g(x)–f(x) (resp. g(**y**)–f(**y**)).
>
>
>
assuming that it is clear that x ∈ X and y ∈ Y?
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: In this simple example (and coming from a background in physics, where we can be a little lax with our mathematical language) I would use a construction like:
>
> The space *O(X)* has functions defined on it as g(x)–f(x), and likewise for the space *O(Y)*.
>
>
>
(I suspect you could omit the 2nd "the space"; you could certainly omit the "and")
This fits with my general approach of restructuring the sentence to avoid awkwardness. Of course this isn't always possible
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/19
| 375
| 1,506
|
<issue_start>username_0: I need to publish a paper before the end of this year and found an announcement with these details:
>
> Submission deadline: 14 July 2022
>
> Final manuscript due: 1 November 2022
>
> Tentative publication date: 20 January 2023
>
>
>
Does that mean that the accepted paper should be in November or after that? I sent an email to the lead editor but without a response.
I got that it is supposed that all final versions send before the first of November, but when will authors be notified of acceptance?<issue_comment>username_1: You missed the submission deadline of the 14th of July and are out of luck. On that date, you needed to have sent your manuscript to the journal for review. If the paper would have been accepted, you would have until November 1st to submit the final version. By January 20, the journal would have done the final editing / compilation work and published the issue with your paper.
If the journal special issue has too few submissions, it is possible that they extend the submission deadline. You should check whether this has happened.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: 14 July: you must submit your manuscript by this date.
1 November: By this date a final decision will have been made for all manuscripts. By implication, you will have received a decision before this date, and if the decision was revise, you need to submit your revision before this date.
20 January: all articles published online, assigned DOIs, etc.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/19
| 956
| 3,957
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my field, it's common that once the first round of reviews are complete and the manuscript is revised, the revised document includes detailed responses to *all* peer reviewers' comments. There are some comments by another reviewer I do not agree with, and some comments that I do. Some comments are incredibly constructive and some are obviously "my group doesn't do research this way, so neither should you."
When reviewing the revised manuscript, what is the etiquette involved in addressing this? For some light context, the manuscript is about a technique that is relatively new to my field and is slowly catching on, but not without a serious uphill battle. The other reviewer is clearly someone who is opposed to "shaking things up" and taking this new technique seriously, while I am open to it but still unconvinced that it works.<issue_comment>username_1: What is more important to you, etiquette or good science? Stepping in to controversies can bounce back on you. But not saying what you think seems sub-optimal.
My preference would be to call it like I see it and if it ruffles a few feathers then that is OK. Einstein's special relativity paper ruffled feathers among the most prominent physicists of the day, who were committed to the aether theory.
If it is nuanced in your view, then say that. If it is unproven, then say that. Referring directly to the comments of another reviewer might be the only way to state the case you see. My preference would be to not be bashful about this, while avoiding attacks.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would probably not address the other reviewer's opinion directly, but you can be strategic and persuasive in your comments and refer to their *review*, similar to how you might respond to a review as an author.
If everyone in your field weaves underwater baskets with bamboo, but the paper is weaving their baskets with hemp, and this other reviewer is a bamboo purist, you need not write:
>
> Reviewer 2 is a ridiculous old buffoon for insisting on bamboo and the editor should ignore those comments, the way of the future is clearly hemp!
>
>
>
However, you can add your own praise of the paper and address the controversy, and perhaps even suggest a reference or two to the authors even if they haven't included them, and even propose a middle ground. An example might be:
>
> Though there is resistance in the field to use of hemp for underwater basket weaving, recent advances have suggested hemp is superior to bamboo in some contexts (NewRef1, NewRef2), as the authors also note by citing (Author's reference 54). The authors might improve their paper by referencing the recent discussion on these controversies in (ReviewofBasketMaterials).
>
>
>
Alternatively, if you find the authors already addressed the concerns of that reviewer in their revision I think you can just call those changes out directly:
>
> I appreciate how the authors have addressed concerns about use of hemp in their underwater baskets by referring to (Author's reference 54 and 55) that establish this as a suitable approach.
>
>
>
You may even acknowledge your own skepticism of the technique and how this paper addresses it for the field, if you find it persuasive:
>
> Although the field is still overall resistant to use of hemp, the authors make a convincing case for this approach that strengthens the significance of their paper for the field.
>
>
>
To me, these are strong signals to the editor yet they are not overly confrontational to the other reviewer. I think it's possible to do both good science and keep to etiquette, which is more about how you communicate things rather than what you say. The other reviewer can remain convinced their opinion on techniques is correct, but that should not be sufficient to rejecting a paper if other reviewers (you) are accepting and the authors at least speak to the possible controversy.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/19
| 1,588
| 6,233
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a STEM PhD student in the UK, and my advisor had given me a semi-ambitious thesis problem a couple of years back. He helped me understand the problem, helped shoot down all my wrong ideas over countless meetings, and also gave me lots of intuition about what the solution should look like. However, he hadn't cracked the problem himself. We didn't really expect my thesis to contain a solution to this problem.
Over the past few weeks, I was able to crack the problem at least partially. Should I ask my advisor to be co-author? There are multiple aspects to consider:
1. Are PhD advisors generally "savvy" enough to ask to be included as co-authors when they feel they have contributed enough to a project? Is it possible that my advisor hasn't asked to be included as co-author because that's a weird question to ask one's student?
2. Will my advisor feel offended if I ask to include him as co-author?
3. Is it possible that my advisor will hate me if I don't ask to include him as co-author? My advisee style has always been to do just what my advisor asks, but is this the point where I should take initiative and try to give him credit for his work, even though he may not be asking for it?<issue_comment>username_1: tl;dr:
1. no, no general style apart from PhD advisors being too busy, sometimes they take something for granted, something they take the opposite of something for granted.
2. no, unless he is an unreasonable person (offending someone unreasonable should be put in the "merits and awards" section of a CV)
3. see 1). If he is taking for granted you will put him as co-author, because he contributed a lot, he will be way more than offended. He may denounce you for plagiarism and prevent you from getting your PhD.
---
An author is someone who has made significant and substantial contributions to a study.
It seems to me that **you** cracked the problem, only after a couple of years of meetings, during which:
>
> he helped me understand the problem, helped shoot down all my wrong
> ideas over countless meetings, and also gave me lots of intuition
> about what the solution should look like.
>
>
>
You would have cracked the problem alone? most likely yes.
In how many years? probably more than two, counting the wrong ideas and the lots of intuition he gave you.
If you would write the complete path to the results, every single small steps[1] that brought you to the results you present, including a chapter for every idea you had and their dismissal from your advisor, as well as the discussion of each intuitions he gave, you would quickly realize how much he contributed.
So his contributions were fundamentals to the study, although they were not necessary.
Then go ahead, offer him co-authorship.
I would even say offer it *indirectly*, something like asking him if you can send him a very first draft of the paper. He may asks you (or not) about being co-author. Then when you send him the paper, casually mention "here attached the draft of our paper on *xyz*" and with him already listed as an author. If he deems not relevant to be co-author, he will state it, but surely he will not be offended[2].
[1] no, the audience does not really care, it is just a pure intellectual hypothese.
[2] if he feels like he did not contribute enough, he will clearly states that, he may not agree with your evaluation of his contributions, but no reasonable person can be offended because by that (at the draft stage, of course it is different at submission, where you need explict proof of every co-author agreeing in authoring the submitted paper).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Given the contribution you describe, your advisor ought to be a co-author on the paper, and he might be a bit annoyed if you do not include him (or he might not care). However, part of the job of your advisor is to *give you his guidance* on things like this to help ease you into academia. Ideally your advisor would sit down with you and explain what he thinks the authorship of the paper should be, and why. It is best to do this at that start of a project so that all parties are comfortable with the authorship arrangements, and then renegotiate if contributions change. Given that you haven't already done this, I recommend you ask for a meeting with your advisor and ask him for guidance on the authorship of this paper, and some more general guidance on authorship.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I myself (math, U.S.), do *not* expect to be a co-author on my PhD students' theses, nor on other papers they may write while I'm coaching/supervising them. I'm not going to ask, in any case.
I wouldn't be offended if a student asked me if I'd want to be a co-author, but I'd decline.
I'd certainly not "hate" any of my students for not asking about co-authorship, etc.
The fundamental goal of the advisor/advisee relationship, in my opinion, is to get the advisee off to a good start. And I think this *of\_course* entails lots of coaching and advise. Recommendations about "what to do"...
But advice about what to do, or observations that "you'd need to do X", are much, much different from "*doing* X". It does often happen that saying what maybe must be done is vastly easier than doing it! :)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: The normal thing is to ask them. Personally, I feel you might be entitled to a sole credit, but 99 out of 100 senior academics feel that they should be on the paper just for being your boss (having secured the funding, etc.).
If you *really* do not want them to be on the paper, you should take a deep breath and tell them.
If you are happy for them to be on the paper, just put their name on the draft you give them to read. If you hear nothing, then they are OK with that.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: When I was a PhD student, I assumed my advisor would coauthor a particular paper, and he said no, he hadn’t contributed enough to it. (This was in CS.)
I agree with those who said ask (for papers/articles, certainly not a thesis). Your advisor should not be offended if you do, and could be miffed if you don’t.
But, it’s not uniform, even in a discipline like engineering.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/19
| 1,545
| 6,276
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in my first PhD rotation. I wanted to ask everyone if my current experience is normal. I have been rotating in the current lab for less than a month. My rotation advisor is very nice and she is doing amazing work in a field I have no background in. I do have experience as a tech for over 3 years. However, as I said, this area is different. Anyway, I am working with a senior graduate student who is in the process of graduating. When I first started, I thought we had good relationship. However, as more experiments were not working (I.e had nothing to do with me, more of the concept related). Anyway, I think my graduate student is frustrated and doesn’t want to train me. She comes in late and ignores me. I instead have been asking her if I can shadow her when she is doing experiments which I thought she was okay with. I guess not anymore. She shrugs me off even when I want to ask questions. It also doesn’t help that no one in the lab really talks to me. I’m just ignored. I have talked with some of them sometimes, but not a lot. I just feel alienated. I honestly haven’t learned a thing. I even left early in the lab because there is no way I’m picking this lab as my thesis lab.
Maybe I’m over thinking it, but I wanted to ask everyone: how can I make the best of this experience since I have a couple more weeks?<issue_comment>username_1: First, I suggest remaining calm. As you say, this is just one rotation, and you don't have to choose this lab long term. So long as you remain in good standing in the program, you have little to lose here.
>
> I wanted to ask everyone if my current experience is normal.
>
>
>
Well, yes and no. It's certainly not optimal, and many professors do offer excellent support to new students. So, I am hopeful that your future rotations will go better. Still, what you describe is not unheard of: the time it takes to properly supervise a new grad student is usually (much) more than the time we save by having an extra pair of hands. So, mentoring new grad students (especially ones on rotation) is often a low priority even for well-meaning supervisors. It's certainly common for the professor to delegate supervision to a post-doc or student (often one who is both busy and unexperienced with supervision) and to assume everything is going well until they hear otherwise.
>
> She comes in late and ignores me...She shrugs me off...I’m just ignored...I honestly haven’t learned a thing...there is no way I’m picking this lab as my thesis lab.
>
>
>
Reading this, my overwhelming reaction is: what do you have to lose? If you remain polite and distant and just do what you can, there is little chance this lab will help your career long-term. On the other hand, if you are much more aggressive about trying to get something to do, then either things will get better (great) or people will remain hostile (no real change from the status quo).
So, a good first step is probably to be much more direct with the grad student. "I notice you're very busy and don't really have time to mentor me. Is there something else I can do over the next few weeks that would be helpful? Should I ask to be reassigned?" I have little hope that this will solve your problem, but it's worth a shot.
>
> My rotation advisor is very nice and she is doing amazing work
>
>
>
Assuming your attempt to resolve this with the grad student doesn't go anywhere, this is your next stop. Do not criticize the grad student, just state facts ("I don't have a project, I'm not able to get my questions answered, I was told not to disturb her, we only overlap for an hour a day") and present possible solutions. Hopefully the professor can reassign you or come up with a different project for you.
>
> I even left early in the lab because there is no way I’m picking this lab as my thesis lab.
>
>
>
I am reasonably hopeful that one of the above steps will succeed. But, it's possible that it fails: the professor brushes you off and/or the other group members are irrationally enraged by your attempts to resolve your situation. In this case, I agree with your instinct here; do the minimum you need to remain in good standing with the program, take the remaining time to learn something useful through self-study, and work hard on future rotations. Good luck.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I’m so sorry you are having such a tough experience. I am also just beginning my first rotation so I don’t know if I have too much expertise.. I would be direct about the treatment you are facing. Either that be talking to the professor or your mentor. Usually, people have a lot on their plate and it may be difficult to supervise a new student, but at the same time it seems that your mentor is creating a toxic work environment. Honestly, if you told them that, what do you have to lose? You still have more opportunities for rotations. A lot of times professors create a picture to new students of their labs environment that just does not resemble reality. I think it would be wise to talk to your mentor/professor so you aren’t suffering silently and so you can still learn!! You got this, good luck :-)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: It is normal for a departing PhD student to ignore training duties. When I was about to finish my PhD, I also did not train new students. My delusional supervisor thought that if I did it before, I would do it again. I had to be quite firm with both my supervisor and the student coordinator that I would be at conferences every other week, and writing the rest of the time, so nobody could shadow me in the lab.
These things happen either because the supervisor does not understand the graduating PhD students' situation the way they should, the graduating student did not articulate their situation. Situation can include "I do not feel like doing this."
Anyway, your course of action is clear: Find someone who wants to involve you in their research. Your first person to ask is rotation advisor. Then ask the person who coordinates the rotations. Then ask everyone else. Know, and be ready to articulate, the research topic of any strangers you approach.
Waiting around simply because you were told to do a rotation is not a good strategy.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/19
| 961
| 4,051
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am new to this forum and although I have found comparable questions ([Can I submit the anonymous referee report from a previous submission to another journal together with my manuscript?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/65454/can-i-submit-the-anonymous-referee-report-from-a-previous-submission-to-another)), none seem directly related to my specific problem.
My field is medicine and I work as a clinician scientist at a hospital. Earlier this year, I submitted a manuscript to a Q1 journal. The article has been rejected - based on 3 reports from reviewers. One of the reviewers is easily identifiable. The field I work in is very small and because of that I am 99.9% sure who that person is.
We wish to resubmit this manuscript to another journal. We revised the manuscript based on the comments. However, said reviewer is part of the editorial board of the journal we want to submit to.
How would you proceed? Shall I include the comments from the previous reviewers or shall I refrain from choosing that journal?
My field is very small and the number of eligible journals is limited.
Thank you for your advice!<issue_comment>username_1: You don't know who the reviewer is, so don't assume you do.
Rejections from top journals (though, please, don't use this Q1/Q2 business... I work in medicine with a lot of clinician scientists, no one I've ever encountered in the real world says Q1/Q2/etc journal) are often less about their scientific merits and more about their overall impact. Ideally those decisions would be made at the desk stage, but often they are not, and the editor relies somewhat on the reviewers' opinions of the significance of the work in making their decision. Especially if the paper would need some work before it can be accepted, if it's not groundbreaking enough for the journal they just aren't going to take the time.
Even if an editor has seen your paper before, I'd expect them to make a judgment based on the current submission. If you've addressed their concerns, they should see it more favorably than they did before. If they decide to desk reject it, well, the turnaround time will be very short and you have little to lose by submitting it there.
It's not normal to include previous reviews with a submission, with the exception of systems that "transfer" a paper from one journal to another within the same publisher's purview. Don't include the previous reviews, regardless of who you guess the editor is or is not.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Submit the paper as revised. Don't submit additional material that could (only) confuse things. Let the editorial and review process operate as usual on the current state of the paper. Its history is of much less importance than what you say and how you support it.
The editor may know some or all of the history as you indicate, but that is up to them. If they ask you for things, consider providing them, but don't make assumptions.
Let the paper be the paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Some journals explicitly support *Portable Review*; you may resubmit to these journals using the reviews you received from a previous submission to another journal. For example: The Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. See <https://journals.sagepub.com/aims-scope/CJK> where there is a detailed description of the policy (number 9 in the list of policies) and what it means.
(Disclaimer: I am not a medical researcher, but I am related to one who happens to be the editor of this journal.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Being from the biomedical/bioengineering side of things, IMO it would be best to resubmit the paper as a new submission after having made the constructive changes provided by reviewers from your previous submission. At the end of the day, (ideally) your work will be judged based on the data and your arguments, and the opinions of other reviewers from previous reviews should not influence the decision of the editorial board. Good luck!
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/20
| 1,097
| 4,725
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been recently accepted a lecturer position in a UK-based institution (which is supposed to be started in a couple of months). I had a discussion with my current postdoc supervisor (in a North American university) about applying grants in the UK (as they had worked in that system for a decade.) They just noted something about (STEM-based) PhD studentships in the UK that I don't truly digest. He said when a PI applies for a grant (associated with, e.g., UKRI), they has to declare any desired postdoc fellows as potential personnel that need to be recruited. So, their salaries have to be a part of the resource statement of the grant. But the PI should not state any required resources to recruit PhD students. Instead, once the grant is approved, the PI has to deal with their department so that the department provides them some PhD studentship. Is it really the case in that PhD students in the UK are funded by their departments not their PI's grants?<issue_comment>username_1: The information from your advisor is mostly true.
Postdoc salary and other costs come from external funding. UKRI is one source. Other sources such as charity funding and EU funding also work this way (at time of writing!).
For PhD students, UKRI explicitly do not allow costs for PhD students. These instead are usually funded through department budgets. There is a block PhD training grant provided to each university to cover some funding in this case. This is typically quite limited.
Often funding for PhD students is negotiated with Head of Department (or other budget holder). This can be for example as part of a recruitment incentive or conditional to support other large grants.
UKRI provides most of its PhD funding through dedicated [Centres for Doctoral Training](https://www.findaphd.com/guides/centres-for-doctoral-training). These are specialist institutes focussed on one area. If you are lucky to have one of these in your area at your institution, these can be a good source of high quality PhD students (although this can be quite competitive internally).
Charity funding and EU funding sometimes allow funding for PhD students.
The other route for funding PhD students is by them brining their own funding. I know of several students from Saudi Arabia and Mexico in our department who have brought this type of funding from their own governments.
In your case I would make contact with your new institution who will be able to give more specific advice on all these points.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Neither.
In general you cannot fund students from normal research grants from UKRI (although there are some calls that are exempt from this rule).
Also, most departments don't fund students these days either (perhaps occasionally as part of a start up package, or a capacity building exercise in a new field).
The standard way for students to be funded (if they are funded), is through large grants specifically targeted at student education. At UKRI such calls are generally known as Doctoral Training Centres (DTC) or Programs (DTPs) or Collaborative Training Programs (CTPs). These grants will be judged not on the proposed research (no research is proposed at this stage), but the quantity of the training/education being offered and are usually collaborations between several universities that will fund 30 or so studentships a year. You will then have the oppotunity to apply to a DTP/C that your department is a part of. This is the stage at which the research you are proposing the student do will be assessed. You will probably be in competition with PIs from several universities. Students might apply directly to you, or to the program, and who makes the decisions about students varies from DTP to DTP.
The reasons for this are that in the UK, the people that make the decisions about such things regard students as students, not as researchers. While they do do research, they are their to get an education, not perform useful research. If the government wants research done (and done properly) it will pay for qualified researchers to be hired. If it wants to up-skill the workforce it will pay for education. These are two separate goals.
This is also partly connected to the fact that UK PhDs are only 4 years max (and are often only funded 3-3.5), but unlike Europe, where they also have time limited PhDs, students in the UK are not expected to have done a 2 year masters degree, so often have to go from zero to qualified researcher in a very short period of time.
Disclaimer: As I always point out on these threads, i'm not in favour of this system, just describing how it is, and the reasoning of those in charge.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/20
| 1,106
| 4,757
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wrote a detailed and long review on the first round and requested a minor or major revision.
Then after 1 or 2 weeks I got a mail notification that the paper is published. I never had the chance to check if the authors improved the paper or not.
Only after logging in into susy I can see what the authors answered to my original review. No mail, and no request to review the revised version and no opportunity to give my feedback. And usually MDPI does not hold back in sending out emails or requesting reviews.
This happened twice to me and also to a colleague. I even explicitly wrote to the editor that I want to review the revised version also, which was ignored without a comment.
Now my questions:
Is this a common practice of MDPI journals?
How can we be sure that there was even a second review round from real academics? Given that it is hard to get reviewers and I can not see what they wrote?
I think that this is unacceptable and will avoid everything from MDPI in the future.<issue_comment>username_1: The information from your advisor is mostly true.
Postdoc salary and other costs come from external funding. UKRI is one source. Other sources such as charity funding and EU funding also work this way (at time of writing!).
For PhD students, UKRI explicitly do not allow costs for PhD students. These instead are usually funded through department budgets. There is a block PhD training grant provided to each university to cover some funding in this case. This is typically quite limited.
Often funding for PhD students is negotiated with Head of Department (or other budget holder). This can be for example as part of a recruitment incentive or conditional to support other large grants.
UKRI provides most of its PhD funding through dedicated [Centres for Doctoral Training](https://www.findaphd.com/guides/centres-for-doctoral-training). These are specialist institutes focussed on one area. If you are lucky to have one of these in your area at your institution, these can be a good source of high quality PhD students (although this can be quite competitive internally).
Charity funding and EU funding sometimes allow funding for PhD students.
The other route for funding PhD students is by them brining their own funding. I know of several students from Saudi Arabia and Mexico in our department who have brought this type of funding from their own governments.
In your case I would make contact with your new institution who will be able to give more specific advice on all these points.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Neither.
In general you cannot fund students from normal research grants from UKRI (although there are some calls that are exempt from this rule).
Also, most departments don't fund students these days either (perhaps occasionally as part of a start up package, or a capacity building exercise in a new field).
The standard way for students to be funded (if they are funded), is through large grants specifically targeted at student education. At UKRI such calls are generally known as Doctoral Training Centres (DTC) or Programs (DTPs) or Collaborative Training Programs (CTPs). These grants will be judged not on the proposed research (no research is proposed at this stage), but the quantity of the training/education being offered and are usually collaborations between several universities that will fund 30 or so studentships a year. You will then have the oppotunity to apply to a DTP/C that your department is a part of. This is the stage at which the research you are proposing the student do will be assessed. You will probably be in competition with PIs from several universities. Students might apply directly to you, or to the program, and who makes the decisions about students varies from DTP to DTP.
The reasons for this are that in the UK, the people that make the decisions about such things regard students as students, not as researchers. While they do do research, they are their to get an education, not perform useful research. If the government wants research done (and done properly) it will pay for qualified researchers to be hired. If it wants to up-skill the workforce it will pay for education. These are two separate goals.
This is also partly connected to the fact that UK PhDs are only 4 years max (and are often only funded 3-3.5), but unlike Europe, where they also have time limited PhDs, students in the UK are not expected to have done a 2 year masters degree, so often have to go from zero to qualified researcher in a very short period of time.
Disclaimer: As I always point out on these threads, i'm not in favour of this system, just describing how it is, and the reasoning of those in charge.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/20
| 1,601
| 5,949
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have always believed that sentences such as
>
> This (paper/report/section/work/chapter/...) describes ...
>
>
>
should be avoided in scientific work, as they attribute an action (describing) to an inanimate object (e.g., a paper). I have therefore always opted for variations of
>
> In this paper, we describe ...
>
>
>
I am now reviewing some student's work and would correct this (for him to learn, not to penalize him in any way). Looking around on the web, though, I cannot find any evidence that writing "this paper describes" or similar is wrong, and do not want to correct my student for *not* making a mistake. If it matters, neither the student nor I are native speakers of English.
Is there any rule?<issue_comment>username_1: This is a matter of style, so I doubt there's a concrete rule.
You could certainly use the APA Style & Grammar guide to support your point, specifically Section 4.11. However, this is more nuanced than apparent at first sight.
I will first state the relevant text/links, followed by some caveats and nuances which may be worth considering.
Quoting from [this useful page](https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/other/anthropomorphism) (emphasis mine):
>
> Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to
> nonhuman entities, objects, or concepts. I**t results in ambiguity or
> misleading communication and thus should be avoided in APA style.**
> However, common usage in academic writing includes **some phrases** such
> as "the results suggest" that, although examples of anthropomorphism,
> **are acceptable for use because they do not lead to confusion**.
>
>
>
And from [here](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/anthropomorphism):
>
> Correct usage: The theory addresses
>
> Incorrect usage: The theory concludes
>
> Rationale usage: A theory might address, indicate, or present, but researchers (not theories) conclude.
>
>
>
Now, the caveats. @Schmuddi has correctly pointed out that some examples on the first link directly address your specific point. These examples, *all of which are considered applicable* are :
>
> This section addresses
>
>
> This paper focuses on
>
>
> The results suggest
>
>
> The study found
>
>
> The data provide evidence that
>
>
>
Thus, the specific example seems above board based on general perception as well as the APA guide.
A broader question is whether the APA guide is infallible; @DanRomik and @Wrzlprmft have correctly observed that the APA judgment on what constitutes anthropomorphism is somewhat arbitrary, and some examples contain a logical fallacy, such as :
>
> The theory concludes
>
>
>
The fallacy is that a theory *cannot* logically conclude anything, so anthropomorphism is moot. A section, manuscript, article, or comment *can*. In these cases, one must decide if the usage is appropriate. (Of course conclude has two meanings, deduce and end, and we are talking about the former. It is possible for a theory to conclude a lecture.)
This brings us back to the beginning; this is a matter of style, so in ambiguous cases, one must apply one's own judgment. [APA](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/anthropomorphism) recommends rewriting when in doubt:
>
> If you are unsure whether a construction constitutes anthropomorphism,
> try rewording the sentence or choosing a different verb.
>
>
>
My personal suggestion would be to do so if the rewritten sentence doesn't become clumsy, wordy, or otherwise unnatural. As a teacher, probably it is best to make students aware of these conventions and leave the choice to them.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your premise that inanimate objects are not capable of action is false. Does the Earth not **revolve** around the sun? Do leaves not **fall** on the ground? Is the book “Crime and Punishment” not a thought-**provoking** work? And didn’t you yourself just write that certain sentences **attribute** actions to inanimate objects?
The types of phrasing you listed aren’t an example of anthropomorphism, despite what another answer says. It would be anthropomorphism to say that a report *believes* or *feels* something. Saying it *describes* something is simply a factual statement consistent with the dictionary definition of the verb “describe”.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: This answer suggests writers should prefer inanimate actions.
I agree with Dan's answer, that a paper can describe or explain something. I'd even say it can conclude something, that is what the section called "Conclusions" does. None of these things suggest that the paper is a sentient entity, just that our use of language includes talking about inanimate objects doing things.
When writing a paper, there is actually a reason to prefer "This paper describes" over "In this paper, we describe"; the former is less verbose. Being less verbose has a few advantages;
1. It respects the readers time.
2. It's harder to make reading errors on shorter sentences. All else being equal, a shorter sentence is clearer.
3. You or the publisher are more likely to spot all writing errors in a shorter text.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: These are questions of taste more than questions of grammar.
"This paper describes ..." isn't wrong, but it does put the paper rather than what's being described first. If possible, start with the result. The abstract might read:
>
> 29 and 2929 = 67 are both prime. We explore that curiosity and find
> connections to deep questions on the distribution of the primes: the
> prime number theorem, Dickson’s conjecture, and Zhang’s bounded prime
> gap theorem.
>
>
>
Then I prefer "We explore" to "This paper explores".
In the text, name the author where possible. Use
>
> In [reference 6] Gauss proved ..
>
>
>
rather than
>
> [Reference 6] proves ...
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/20
| 757
| 3,168
|
<issue_start>username_0: We performed a very complicated measurement in the high-energy physics field and now as a PhD, I am doing the data analysis. The setup has two detectors, one of which broke. Therefore, we only have information from one detector. The thing is, both detectors are crucial to reach the final goal of the measurement. Instead, we have only one working but we know why the other one accidentally died during the experiment. So, I suppose this is neither wrong methodology nor it is a null hypothesis. As much as I hate the term, it is a failed experiment due to mistakes that could've been avoided.
The question is, how would one extract something publishable from such data?
Would it be enough to state what I did and why it failed?<issue_comment>username_1: Since both detectors are "crucial" you haven't really got anything and the experiment needs to be repeated (woe).
What you have is an anecdotal story about instrument failure and the necessity of carrying out experiments according to a pre-defined plan.
Perhaps you have enough data from the one instrument to be able to say that the data available doesn't seem to contradict the hypothesis, but not much else.
Sorry for your troubles, but lots of people have setbacks in their research. Math is full of it also. Yours may be expensive in money as well as time, but little in the world of scholarship is assured.
Whether anything can be published is up to the publisher. Since you can't accept or reject the hypothesis based on the failed experiment it seems doubtful.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the data are useless, too bad.
If the accidental death of the second detector was somehow interesting or instructive you might be able to write about it.
See [What to do when you spend several months working on an idea that fails in a masters thesis?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30995/what-to-do-when-you-spend-several-months-working-on-an-idea-that-fails-in-a-mast/31082#31082)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Think about why we publish to begin with: Because we want to add to the existing knowledge, not because the authors need it for their careers. As a consequence, what makes something publishable is if it provides for something that is new in the sense that it is either an observation no others have made so far, or that it adds evidence to something others have published but for which the evidence was not yet convincing (think: the precise mass of the Higgs boson). A paper that is solely written "because we made an experiment and we want to write a publication on it" is neither interesting to readers, nor does it add anything worthwhile to the body of literature.
Which way things lean for your specific case I don't know. It is possible that you can scrape enough evidence from your one detector to show something that was not yet known, even if the evidence is maybe not overwhelming because you don't have the second detector. In that case, it may be possible to publish the results. Or, it may be that there really isn't anything others haven't already observed. In that case, you're out of luck.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/20
| 652
| 2,795
|
<issue_start>username_0: When I am fortunate enough to have a paper get accepted for publication, I often dread the final round of proofreading before I submit the LaTeX source files. Often, I read the paper start to finish multiple times and make incremental/superficial changes, but always have a difficult time calling it properly "proofread". In addition, I find this approach (multiple full proofreads) seems less useful for checking technical aspects of a paper (e.g., mathematical derivations or involved pseuedo-code) which is arguably more important.
I am wondering what types of routines people have developed for this situation. I would prefer to be much more systematic, as my current approach is both inefficient (time-wise) and doesn't seem very effective. Specifically, what do you do in order to call the paper "proofread" and feel comfortable sending it off to never be edited again?<issue_comment>username_1: It is very difficult to proofread your own work. You brain knows what you want to say and too often, in my experience, you "see" what isn't written because your mind produces the correct statement. And, my experience is that the harder I try the worse I do. Fatigue? Reinforcement?
My best advice is to make a deal with a colleague in your (sub) field and collaborate by proofing each other's work. Their mind doesn't have preconceptions about what is (should be) on the page, so they are much more likely to catch those things, especially those at the margins, that your mind refuses to see.
I no longer have the opportunity for that (retired) and I often find truly bone-headed errors in my technical writing. I've swapped symbols for "and" and "or" for example creating true nonsense.
A text editor at a book publisher can help with this, but they aren't often used for papers, and they often lack the required technical expertise.
I often find my own errors if I lay the work aside for a while and come back to it, but that doesn't work very well for papers. A week's pause is probably untenable.
Get fresh eyes if possible. Even a graduate student might be able to do it for a bit of cash.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Two things that our group follows for every submission:
(1) Atleast two people read it together (our submissions are always multi-author, so this isn't hard to arrange). This is typically the lead writer and a co-author. It helps because the chance of two persons simultaneously missing an error is low.
(2) Reading it out aloud. Vocalising somewhat takes your brain off the driver's seat, and you're less likely to gloss over things that are incorrect but obviously understood by you. I imagine this would be difficult if there are a large number of equations, but otherwise it is surprisingly effective, and fast.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/21
| 479
| 2,067
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm going to a foreign city to meet a friend, and while I'm there I figure I might as well visit the local university and talk to the researchers in my field (astronomy) to find out more about what they're working on.
Who do I contact about this kind of visit? I don't know anyone there personally, and there's nobody in particular that I'm interested in meeting. I haven't looked through their personal pages (much less publications) either. Should I? It looks like a fairly large department, with ~20 researchers at postdoc level and above + some 50 PhD students; checking out every one of them will take time.<issue_comment>username_1: In the US it would be appropriate and possibly necessary to contact the head of the department in which astronomy resides. For foreign travel, do something similar, depending on the organization of the university. You need permission to avoid security issues. Strangers wandering around are an issue.
In pandemic times there may be special restrictions. Many large faculty have some sort of "coffee lounge" where they gather informally. It is a good place to chat with people, including graduate students in at least some places. The department head might even be willing to introduce you to a few people.
Offer to give a talk on some subject that you know well and that might be of interest to a few faculty and students. If this is agreeable, the "department" will likely make an announcement, indicating you will be present.
Indicate that you are just using the opportunity of being in the neighborhood to establish informal contacts.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Maybe you can join a colloquium or some other (semi-)public event by that department. Maybe you can give a talk and listen to a talk.
If that is not possible, I would think about a more concrete goal of those meetings. Imagine you get a meeting with some faculty member, you sit in her/his office, and (s)he starts with "Welcome. What do you want to talk about?" and an awkward silence ensues.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/21
| 1,289
| 5,702
|
<issue_start>username_0: I and my advisor (both theorists) used to have a nice collaboration with experimentalist A on paper X a few years ago. A and I were the co-first authors.
A few months ago A came to us again on a follow-up experimental study, which will be paper Y to be submitted. A wanted to use our old theory from paper X to explain the new experiment in paper Y and asked our thoughts on this.
My advisor and I, after some discussion, found it somewhat interesting and did some calculation for a different new mechanism. I talked to A and sent my short calculation note and A also found this new mechanism a very interesting possibility and worth experimental investigation. However, eventually, we found that this new mechanism may not be all-compatible with this particular experiment, although it should appear better in some other cases and will be an important finding. Finally, we agreed to mainly rely on the old theory again in paper Y, and A probably will briefly mention this new possibility (not sure).
A wrote to my advisor and cc me asking to put our names in the acknowledgment and my advisor said OK (\*\*). My advisor has so many papers and does not care (at least will not object in such an email reply). To be honest, I somewhat care, given the discussion and time involved (not sure if appropriate).
After a week, A wrote to me only again asking if some additional calculation or formula was possible for the explanation and comparison in this new paper Y. It is simple and I can do that. But I started to feel a bit disappointed to be still in the acknowledgment. Am I being too greedy and unethical? Or what should I do?
(If given coauthorship, certainly not co-first author, just some random position no one cares. A will be the only first author.)
(\*\*) Actually, this was the only time my advisor replied to A's email. A was mainly communicating with me because my advisor acted not so responsively in replying to A's emails (ignored twice). But I'm pretty sure he was just too busy recently, otherwise we two didn't have to discuss the experiment and new mechanism at all when I mentioned to him A's early email.<issue_comment>username_1: Since the update, it appears that most of the communication has been between A and you, and the advisor was only roped in when the decision about sharing credit was made.
From my viewpoint, it seems like A considers the advisor to be the decision-making authority on this, and believes that you will fall in line. If this is true, directly making the request may not be a good idea, and you could instead prevail on the advisor to speak to A.
If my reading is wrong -you will know this best- then I think there's no harm in reaching out to A with your concerns about time. You could cite your other commitments, need to show tangible output and then ask if you could be included as an author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Talk to your supervisor. Forward the e-mail with the new request from A to them and ask your supervisor to schedule a short meeting to discuss this. You probably want to explore the following:
* This case in particular: What is your supervisor's idea on whether you should do additional work to begin with (since this is taking time away from other projects, presumably, even if it is small/quick)? Does this change the authorship/ackowledgement discussion in in their opinion? Would they be willing to ask A for authorship for you in that case? Do they want to settle this now or after you've done the work/they've revised the manuscript?
* Your supervisor's attitude in general: are they someone who believes that collaboration drives scientific progress and not every effort should be turned into an authorship battle? Or are they someone who want authorship credit for things like this? How and when do they decide on authorships in their own lab? Do they have a fixed structure for that? Would they allow you to be granted co-authorship even if they are not on the paper?
You are probably right that with a long publication record this single paper weighs less for your supervisor than it does for you, but also consider what it will mean for you in the long run. If someone asks you: how did you contribute to this work? Can you give a clear answer? Check the CREDIT taxonomy for different roles. Is this a paper you would be proud of to have on your CV? Is it solid work, related to the profile you want to build for yourself? Are you comfortable being a co-author even if your supervisor would decline? If someone from another lab came to you with a request for authorship based on what you did, would you offer them a spot?
There are no hard and fixed rules for this, part of this depends on academic culture (and that differs per field) and even the personal moral/ethical principles of a single scientist (in this case your supervisor) - although you might want to check out the guidelines for author credit by ICMJE as a lead. Also remember that authorship credit also comes with responsibility for the work. In the long run one additional publication doesn't matter, but your reputation does.
It's hard to predict which data/efforts will end up in a manuscript, and indeed sometimes you put in work that doesn't result in anything tangible. Where we draw the line is quite personal. A wise scientist once told me that good scientists have more acknowledgments than publications (meaning that they generously share ideas and data without always expecting to be paid in publication currency - academia would be a better place if more people held that viewpoint).
By the way, if you have no intention to stay in academia than non of this really matters anyway.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/21
| 1,580
| 6,926
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Context**: I am a math professor at a small Christian college in the US.
Shortly after starting my undergraduate education, I made choices that lead me to an addiction to internet pornography, and that addiction grew considerably worse in graduate school. Exposure to this content deeply affected the way that I looked at and perceived women, and I have invested considerable time and effort into healing the psychological damage resulting from my behavior. I hid this addiction very effectively throughout my education and early career and never truly began dealing with the problem and its roots until shortly after I was married several years later. (My wife has been immensely and undeservedly gracious, patient, and wise throughout the whole process. I could say much more, but that's not relevant to my question.)
Now that I am sufficiently into my recovery, I am building a healthier vision for my future. In particular, I feel called to help undergraduate men who are struggling similarly to how I did all those years ago. I know that a campus ministry group related to sexual addiction would have been a serious blessing to me at the time, and I would like to consider starting one. I plan to meet with a representative from our campus ministry office (and potentially my department chair) about this when the time is right, but I wanted to ask this question here first.
**Question**:
Would it be possible to lead a group aimed at helping young men who struggle with sexual addiction while also serving as a professor at my institution? This group would probably operate with internal confidentiality, but I know that in the course of leading the group that I will need to disclose a nontrivial amount of my personal history. This would include ugly details about the extent of my pornography use and the objectification of many of the women who I studied with as a undergraduate and taught in graduate school and my early career. In particular, I am concerned about how this information could affect my career or standing among both my colleagues and students at the college if the confidentiality of the group is not respected. Even if the confidentiality of the group is respected, should I be concerned about the likelihood that a student from the group might end up in one of my classes?
Although my college is indeed a Christian institution, there are many faculty and students who are not practicing Christians or may even hold other faiths. That said, I am interested in any and all opinions.
[Disclaimer: I realize that some people consider pornography use morally acceptable behavior, but for the sake of this question I am not interested in discussing the morality, necessity, or usefulness of the campus ministry group I described.]
**Clarifications**:
* Doing such a ministry outside of the university is an option, though more students would probably attend if it were on campus.
* I have previously volunteered in campus ministry, but have not yet done so as a professor.
* Most professors at my institution are quiet about their faith (or lack thereof); a few are very open about their Christianity. I'm not aware of any professors that are directly involved in student ministry.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that you don't do this and leave it to professionals while you focus on teaching math and setting a good example for others.
If you have a dual role you are likely to confuse students, rather than to help them. Even revealing your past behavior could be an issue for many, both young women you are responsible for teaching and men who may or not share your past.
If you think such things need to be addressed at your institution, talk to the administration about hiring a trained professional. Addictions of all kinds likely need to be addressed, actually.
Note that I'd give the same advice to people at secular institutions.
And, for other addictions that I can think of the answer would probably remain the same. Some of your students may have suffered from addiction of others, say alcoholism in parents. It might make them less likely to trust you generally. If students come to you with concerns, refer them to a professional.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Congratulations on your sobriety!
There are self-help groups similar to Alcoholics Anonymous that address sex-addiction, namely SAA. I would suggest you seek them out with the view of setting up a new group on your campus. They would not want to be sponsored by campus ministry or the college, but they would accept room and maybe free coffee. After you participated in a few meetings and have found a sponsor with contact to the organization, you can then approach campus ministry.
Since they are anonymous and since the meetings are usually NOT open (you need to suffer from the problem addressed in order to attend a meeting), your privacy is somewhat guarded, though not absolutely protected. You should not be the convener anyway, as you are not qualified for addiction work.
You need to have the backing of campus ministry or someone high up in the administration, because there are probably morality clauses in your contract. Even though you are not violating them (You are NOT using for a long time), you do not want to appear to have violated them recently or that you are likely to violate them.
Addiction to pornography has become a big problem on campuses and in the work-force. Acting out can have close to career destroying effects, so that groups like the one you are contemplating are very useful. However, do not re-invent the wheel. The AA methodology works for motivated sufferers, but they had to learn how to do it. Similarly, sex addiction is a bit different than alcoholism, and you want to benefit from their collective knowledge.
You can of course go a very different route, trying to set up a Christian self-help group. Working with addiction is difficult, you are not trained, you do not have the relevant degrees, and you would expose yourself to ridicule that will make your other work very difficult. I would suggest that you do not do that since the chances of success are slim and the personal costs quite high. As you can see from one of the comments, your students might be queasy about your personal struggles.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Your desire to help others if commendable.
Confidentiality within a group may be violated, so please consider how public knowledge of your struggles with pornography addiction would make your female students and colleagues, present and future, feel in your presence (I am not justifying any such feelings). Maybe specifically ask women for their opinion.
Maybe you could find people who have led help-groups for pornography addiction, and ask them how their role has affected them.
Perhaps you could consider helping others in an online anonymous setting.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/21
| 668
| 2,625
|
<issue_start>username_0: If your main goal is to become a professor in a fairly ranked university anywhere in the developed world. Will completing a postdoc in any country except the USA (namely: Australia, China, Japan, France) be even recognized when applying for professor positions also around the world?
I read in the web that in the USA and in general, most developed countries, doctorates from anywhere else aren’t recognised, but only from their own country or from the USA.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Will completing a postdoc in any country except the USA (namely: Australia, China, Japan, France) be even recognized when applying for professor positions also around the world?
>
>
>
If you are achieving good research results inside or outside the US, your postdoc will be valuable for your academic career.
If you are not achieving good research results inside or outside the US, your postdoc may not be valuable for your academic career.
Even if you do your PhD or postdoc in a place nobody has heard of in a country where academia is not as well-developed as elsewhere — if you have good publications in highly ranked journals, you are in a good situation. It *might* be harder to achieve this when you're not in a well-established research group, and personally, I would be actually more impressed if someone achieved this while based in Bangui than while based in Toronto.
>
> I read in the web that in the USA and in general, most developed countries, doctorates from anywhere else aren’t recognised, but only from their own country or from the USA.
>
>
>
This is false. Most doctorates from serious universities are recognised. There may be some exceptions; for example, I knew a PhD student from Russia who said her PhD was not recognised in Russia unless she translated her PhD thesis into Russian. Since she had no intention to find academic employment in Russia, this didn't matter to her.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: User username_1 has already given a [general answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/187224/135841).
In addition, here is one more specific and more concrete data point: in German academia it is (at least in STEM fields; I don't know about other fields) typically considered to be an advantage careerwise (rather than a disadvantage) if you have gained some experience abroad (be it by a postdoc position or by a PhD).
And no, "abroad" does not mean "in the US" here; it just means, well, "abroad". (Although I should probably add that one might meet a non-negligible amount of prejudice here regarding positions in developping countries.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/22
| 856
| 3,183
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am wondering if a Postdoctoral fellowship is considered a job or a degree
1. in the academia
2. to the private-sector employer
3. by the Visa-issuer country
?<issue_comment>username_1: A post doc is just a job. It is a way for a recent doctoral recipient to extend their research so as to become more employable in general, usually in seeking an academic position.
There is nothing like a degree "awarded" for a postdoc. An office and a paycheck and access to other researchers, but little else.
A nation might issue an employment (not student) visa to permit the person to take the job, but it isn't a degree seeking position like a PhD candidate can claim.
Companies probably care very little unless the research is of interest to the company.
Academia cares only in so much as it keeps viable candidates "in the game" for a while if they can't be hired at the moment and/or are judged to need a bit more "seasoning".
But, not a degree or anything similar. A job.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I will add an answer, since there are some nuances to the question revolving around what the OP meant by a 'PostDoc fellowship', particularly the 'fellowship' bit.
At my US national lab, a postdoc is a particular job category - a limited-term position with a requirement of having obtained one's PhD less than 6 years prior to application. But, it is a job - the lab pays a salary, takes out appropriate taxes (Medicare, social security, withholdings per a W-4) and offers benefits (medical, vacation, ...). Even our special postdoctoral 'fellowships' are a job, just with more funding available with them. To my experience at classic tech companies (Bell Labs, IBM Research), this same thing holds. The postdoc is a job with salary, benefits, and a W-2 at the end of the year.
Many university postdocs are similar - they are an employee of the university, paid a salary, have taxes withheld, etc. etc.
HOWEVER - postdoc Fellowships may well be different. As one example, [Harvard's School of Public Health](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty-affairs/postdoctoral-research-fellows/postdoc-benefits/postdoctoral-fellows-stipendee-taxes/) notes (my bolding):
>
> Postdoctoral Fellows – Stipendee Taxes
>
>
>
>
> Research fellows paid with a stipend should be aware of the tax implications related to this form of payment. Since stipendee postdoctoral fellows **are not employees** of the University, income taxes will not be withheld from stipends. In addition, the University’s contribution to a stipendee postdoc’s benefit plans must be treated as taxable income to the postdoc (i.e. imputed income). The expectation is that postdocs who receive a stipend will make quarterly estimated federal and state tax payments.
>
>
>
Perusing the information for NSF Postdocs would indicate something similar - the NSF sends $$$ directly to the postdoc, while any teaching salary is paid by the institution they are at. So the teaching may be a job, but the postdoctoral fellowship is not (but income taxes need to be paid).
So, while a postdoc is not a degree (but requires one!), it also may not be a "job".
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/23
| 1,065
| 4,585
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is a useless novelty still considered a novelty?
I am reviewing a paper and the method is meaningless. But the authors used somewhat creative methods (I mean it is their own method) that suggest their method and its philosophy has problems. Their assumptions in real-world are meaningless.
Additionally, it is their own method but it is a simple one.
What should I do? I have only two options for selection: 1. novel enough for publication, or 2. not novel.
The journal is a high ranking journal.
I know that this novelty in "not enough" to be published in such a journal, but my problem is that it is not 0 to be considered "not novel" too!
Also, I know that in this case I would be better to select "not novel".
But I got doubtful about my understanding from the meaning of novelty, and my mind arose this question : **Is a meaningless novelty still considered a novelty?**<issue_comment>username_1: The issue is that the journal's instructions aren't sufficient to cover the ground. If you can't choose 1 then you must choose 2. The opposite interpretation implies that anything novel, by any measure, is sufficiently novel for publication (in that journal).
But the measure of novel should be more than "I don't think anyone ever tried that (thought of that) before." It should really be whether the ideas in this paper can be used to advance the state of the art in the field. If they have no application in advancing the field, then they are meaningless and have no publishable value, even if they are a bit fun or cute.
And surely your review consists of more than checking a box. Say what you believe to be true based on your analysis.
It might also be valuable to inform the editor of your dilemma. Maybe they will fix the problem, perhaps by adding a third choice. Or, perhaps, by editing the labels on the checkboxes.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The potential of novel research is not always obvious from the outset. An extreme case is the rejected papers which ultimately earned their authors a Nobel. [This site](https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize) mentions a few, such as Fermi's paper on weak interaction which apparently "... contained speculations too remote from reality to be of interest to the reader."
Although the paper in question may not be earth-shattering, it might have unobvious applications somewhere in the vast CS field.
Also, a "meaningless" method might inspire valuable solutions later.
If you are having doubts, could it be worth asking the authors for clarification? (They've been thinking a lot on the topic.)
For instance, they could explain why their method could be meaningful, and come up with practical applications. Of course, as @username_1 implies, these communications should go through the proper channels.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Novelty is novelty, but simply because nobody has cared to solve the problem doesn’t mean it’s worth solving. For instance, once could “reinvent” a sorting algorithm that nobody has published before that performs worse than the standard algorithm (thus technically novel but useless).
One way deal with this kind of issue is to ask for a specific example that can be handled (or handled better) with this new method, but not by other methods. Another legitimate comment is to ask for advantages of this method over others.
In effect, what you’re doing in asking for such details is asking the authors to expand on the novelty to clarify who would benefit from this new method.
Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine to suggest that the method is incremental or does not represent a sufficient advance to be published.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Evaluations have more than a single dimension. Common in my neck of applied computer science is to evaluate manuscripts in (at least) the criteria *novelty*, *significance*, and *soundness* (more criteria, such as *presentation* or *envisioned impact*, are also not uncommon). What you describe is that the manuscript may indeed be novel, but not significant (and potentially not sound, depending on whether their "own method" is plausible or not).
A baseline for acceptable papers is usually a reasonably uncontroversial yes to *all* evaluation criteria - a novel and significant contribution that's wrong should not be published, and neither should a correct, novel, but irrelevant paper (there are trade-offs and special cases, such as replication studies, but there are usually special rules for those).
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/24
| 1,469
| 6,200
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got a PhD offer from a US university (the same university I completed my undergrad degree), and I asked for a deferral earlier this year (as I'm planning to do a one-year master's program at a UK university) and the professor approved my request. However, in the past few months, I found myself changed my research interest to a relevant field, but it's very different from the US PhD program I deferred.
My question is would that be possible/okay for me to let my university know that I want to decline this offer (which is intended to begin in September 2023) and reapply to other PhD programs that fit better with my research interests? If so, should I do that as soon as possible?
I didn't sign any legal document for the deferral (just sent an email to the program director to confirm I want to take the deferral), but I would feel bad for not committing to their program and applying to others.
---
**Additional information:** If I didn't get accepted elsewhere I might still be interested in this position, so I'm not sure when would be a good time to let my professors know I want to decline, and if it's unethical to do that too late.
I might also be asking my professors at the current university for a reference letter if I reapply to other programs (since they know me very well and the new application cycle for PhD is starting soon), so *I want to figure out how I can better communicate with my professors about my situation without burning a bridge.*<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you can decline, and should do so as soon as possible. Nobody benefits from you joining a program that you don't want to be part of. It wastes everyone's resources: time, money, space.
Declining ASAP might let another student fill the slot, though it would be a bit late now for the coming September. For a year from now it won't even disrupt anything, so another student will likely get the slot as appropriate.
No one will even be very surprised to see some students do this. Better to decline than to start and drop out later.
If an individual professor was involved, it would be good to apologize and explain, though an apology isn't really necessary, just polite. People change. Other people recognize that.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I've been there. I declined the offer and reapplied. I think it was a good decision—especially after hearing from [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/187258/23842), who might know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a broken deferral.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You're in a tricky position, because you've made a commitment and now want to go back on that commitment.
It's like you have agreed to a date for the dance, but are wanting to check out opportunities for other dates while not losing the one you have if those don't pan out. Your original date can justifiably be upset by this.
By the same token, though, if you'd be unhappy dancing with them (ensuring neither you nor your date will have a good time at the dance), it's also a bit rude *not* to cancel on them, since they will have wasted more time and not had any opportunity to search for a new option themselves.
I think you need to consider carefully where you stand. The most respectful thing to do if you're certain you want to go a different direction would be to inform the program as soon as possible that you will be doing something else.
I think it's unethical if you were to try to have it both ways and keep them as a backup plan while applying elsewhere. Things are a bit different in this situation than in the typical job world.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I have a slightly different view on this situation. Technically speaking I ended up in the exact same scenario: I accepted a 1 year MSc in the UK, declined all US PhD offers, including from my undergrad institution, and then ended up reapplying and accepting a (better) offer from my undergrad institution the following year. This caused me no issues whatsoever except the application fees and materials.
By deferring an offer, you have currently conveyed to your undergrad institution that you will definitely accept an offer for Fall 2023. This certainly affects their decisions, if not now then when they start to think about PhD applications.
After quite a bit of thought, I still think you should decline and reapply as soon as you are certain about the decision. It's a bit tricky since you initially deferred, but I think you can deal with this without hugely impacting your next application.
Indeed, when you decline you have the opportunity to blame something that isn't, effectively, "I think I can get a better PhD offer". For instance, my go-to would be to indicate that prevailing economic conditions have caused you to reassess your career options. So while you're still heavily considering a PhD and might reapply, you don't think you can give as firm a guarantee as a deferral in good conscience.
There are other options, but almost all of them are probably worse. The thing you want to avoid, if you genuinely consider your undergrad a reasonable backup that you would accept in some situations, is conveying that you are extremely unlikely to accept another offer. Telling them that your entire research focus has changed in less than 6 months doesn't seem like a great avenue for that.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: The fact that you have already deferred makes this all the difference here: your supervisor will hopefully be able to recruit another person next year, though they may lose some standing in their department, depending how big a deal it is to get a PhD studentship.
Also, the fact it is a long, presumably course-heavy US PhD rather than a short, specific, European 3-year project type of PhD makes a difference.
I agree it is a lot better to inform ASAP and switch now than to switch later. But I don't lightly suggest switching. PhD student acceptance processes are a big deal, a huge amount of time is spent on them, not only other students denied the place but also project and grant selection by the the supervisor may be affected by who is recruited.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/24
| 684
| 2,963
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just started my PhD in physics. It has been 6 months. I have had a mentor for sometime and I have wanted to add him as a co-supervisor. My university told me he cannot be added as a co-supervisor because he works in the same field (physics). The co supervisor can be added only if he's from another discipline like biology for example. Is this how these things work? I am confused and also angry. My supervisor says that I can still collaborate with him. But I still don't feel good about it.<issue_comment>username_1: In the US, at least, every university sets its own policies in such things so you need to ask them for reasons if you really want to know.
But a typical reason might be to optimize (in some sense) faculty usage and efforts. Another might be to assure that you don't get conflicting advice. Some questions here relate to problems with co supervisors. In the case of a dispute between "advisors", should it arise, having a single advisor makes it clear whose advice you need to follow and the dispute can't be used to block you. It happens.
And your assumption about funding travel might be erroneous. Funds don't magically appear and if the place doesn't allow co-supervisors they are unlikely to have funding for such.
External supervisors are another issue as they may get no credit for advising you.
That said, you can certainly seek advice from whomever you wish, local or otherwise. A co-supervisor formal relationship is mostly just an administrative acknowledgement, unless funding is supplied.
The exception for cross-discipline co-advisors is likely there to encourage such things, as is appropriate.
But, as your advisor suggests, you can get advice and collaborate with others. The policy doesn't prohibit that.
There is one caveat, however. You say that the prohibition applies to co-advisors in the same discipline, but your definition of that seems very broad. Physics covers a lot of fields. Make sure you understand the policy. Different physicists in different specialties do quite different things. Maybe different enough in your case.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is very much institution-dependent. Actually in many examples I’m familiar with, the co-supervisor must be a member of the same (graduate) program so a would-be co-supervisor from biology would first have to become adjunct in physics to be granted co-supervision privileges, effectively becoming a member of the graduate department (here of physics) in addition to their regular duties in their home unit.
As a result, “sharing” students between faculty in the *same* unit, subject to some formal agreement (which may include sharing the funding burden if required) is not that uncommon.
There is really nothing you can do. In my experience units have (usually good) historical reasons for this or that policy, often driven by the desire to rectify some previous abuse or avoid some tricky situation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/25
| 194
| 801
|
<issue_start>username_0: My paper has been accepted with minor revision.
When I revise the paper, should I mark the edited sentences by using a different color like for a major revision?<issue_comment>username_1: You should:
1. make a list of detailed corrections, indicating the lines and the changes in text, and referencing the referee report or comments of the editor,
2. and/or change font color.
This last is especially good so the referee or editor can easily check that suitable changes have been made. I usually do both, irrespective of the “level” of revision required.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> should I mark the edited sentences by using a different color
>
>
>
You should use a tool that automatically marks the changes, like Latexdiff or track changes.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/25
| 712
| 3,072
|
<issue_start>username_0: The first type of review a manuscript gets when submitted is the internal review done by the editor, who is in general an expert in the field.
Given their expertise, can an editor have an initial impression on the manuscript that gives them an insight on *whether it will eventually get accepted or not*, ahead of the reviewers recommendations?
I'm asking this question because depending on the editor and the journal, the editorial screening isn't just about the respect of the journal's directives and being within its scope, but also the novelty of the subject as well as the quality of the manuscript. So, if the editor is convinced that the manuscript is of a high quality and the results are novel, then this may give them an initial idea of the decision that they will eventually make.<issue_comment>username_1: It's certainly *possible*. For example when the Large Hadron Collider first started running and the first ATLAS collaboration papers were submitted, one can be confident that the papers will eventually be accepted. That itself is a consequence of the fact that the collaboration involves hundreds of reputable scientists who will surely be cross-checking each other's work. One does not need to be an expert in particle physics to be able to say the above.
For most papers though, the editor will not know (they certainly won't know the topic as well as the reviewer).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not an editor, so can't speak to what editors do. I can hypothesize.
Were I an editor I would expect to have opinions about most papers that crossed my desk - after all, I am an editor because I know the field well and am willing to put in the effort needed to advance it.
I would expect that careful reviews by referees would more often than not support my initial thoughts. When they didn't I would think about why. If it happened often I might think I was the wrong person for the job.
I would base final accept/reject decision on the referees' recommendations and reasons. There would be close calls requiring judgement.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As an editor for 15 years and editor-in-chief for 4 years, my experience is this: for 50% of papers, I know after a couple of minutes whether they will be accepted, and I'm reasonably sure about the others.
For the ones that I think have no chance, they get rejected without review. This is about 30% of papers. For the ones that I'm doubtful, I often ask one of the Associate Editors about their opinion and for some of them, we decide to reject without revision. Since we're weeding out the ones we believe are not competitive, we end up with a pool of papers that get sent out to reviewers and of which 2/3 or 3/4 eventually get published (though sometimes after two or even three revisions).
My take is that editors who do not have the will to reject papers right away and hide behind reviews are putting a burden on everyone (authors, reviewers), and I encourage them to feel empowered to reject papers outright.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
|
2022/07/26
| 607
| 2,511
|
<issue_start>username_0: My program is structured such that I have to do two years at one institution, then transfer to a different institution for the third and final year. I am now finishing the second year and filling out the application to transfer.
This application requires a motivation letter, for which the university provides a template. The template states the following:
>
> * Pursuit of studies envisaged beyond this degree
> * Reason for choosing this university
> * In a few lines, specify your professional project
>
>
>
For the last one, should I talk about my 2nd year end of studies project? This is my fist time writing a motivation letter.<issue_comment>username_1: They seem to be defining "project" in the sense of your long term career goals, not a short term academic project.
So, write instead about what you envision for a career. And, perhaps, focus on how university studies will get you on the path to those long term goals.
If you want to write about your end of studies project only do so in response to how this university might support you in extensions of it if you see that as a path to publication or another goal.
But think more broadly and long term for the third part. The word "project" can have a lot of meanings.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> specify your professional project
>
>
>
The prompt is not clear. My best guess would be along the lines of what username_1 wrote, but it would be reasonable to ask the university for clarification.
>
> [the institution is in France, but the instructions were in English]
>
>
>
Ah ha! This French-speaking institution probably mistranslated the phrase "projet professionnel." A better translation would have been "professional goals." A full definition is provided (in French) [here](https://www.avisto.com/fr/projet-professionnel/), but the gist of it is that they want a (brief) [statement of purpose](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/statement-of-purpose): what are your professional goals, how will you achieve them, and how does your application here tie into those goals.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: No, you should not be focussing on the 2nd year of your degree. Instead, you should follow their instruction to focus on "[p]ursuit of studies envisaged beyond this degree". Comment on what you hope to do beyond this degree, your reason for choosing this university for your present program, and how this feeds into your overall professional goal.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/26
| 1,067
| 4,507
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a teen who's writing a paper on Poisson-Disc distribution over the summer for fun, and I wanted to distribute the software I used for the simulations to maintain scientific integrity. Obviously I don't have anything like a university server I can host it on, so my first instinct is to host it on my GitHub. I guess this would work, but there are several problems with it, such as its fallibility. Furthermore, I'm not really used to professionalism yet, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to host professional, academia stuff on my personal GitHub. I do go to a more-or-less significant technological program at my school, and since school starts back up in a few weeks, I guess I could talk to my teachers about hosting it on the school servers, but there's only a 50-50 chance they'll let me do that. Do y'all have any better ideas?<issue_comment>username_1: Use GitHub (as mentioned in the comments), but with a twist.
You can archive GitHub repos to Zenodo (they have a machinery for that) or really any other scientific research storages (as a tarball, for example). In this manner you can ensure permanence. The visibility is easier on the GitHub, though.
And, as mentioned, a somewhat official-looking (like, with a real name) personal GitHub account is professional enough. It's basically the link from the paper to the GitHub that matters, not other way round.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Using Github for this is fine and is generally not seen as unprofessional. There is a little bit more to proper sharing of code than just sticking it into a git repo. Github has a "releases" function that will let you capture an image of your code base in time. You can say "I tested this code with release v1.2.3 from this github repository." In that way your code will always be retrievable in the state that worked despite any modifications, updates, re-releases etc you do on it.
The problem is capturing the metadata and environment data that you used to run the code. There are tools for this but one of the "easiest" ways to do this would be to write a docker file that has all the library/environment dependencies you need to make the code run, include your released code into that, build the image and host that on docker-hub. Gitlab also has a docker image repo that you can use for free. There are also all sorts of automated CI/CD pipelines built into gitlab/hub you can use to automate this but that might be going a little far.
Using a combination of releases/docker, in the future, a different user will be able to pull the exact same code you used, run it with the exact same versions of all the libraries, and hopefully get the exact same results. You should also address the provenance of the input data, preprocessing steps etc in case the code doesn't auto generate everything from scratch.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm not sure what you mean by GitHub's "fallibility." Due to its size, reputation and the funding behind it (Microsoft, now) it's likely one of the most reliable places to host a Git repo.
But the key characteristic of Git repos is that they're essentially blockchain based, so the source of the repo (i.e., where it's hosted) is not really that important. Commit `0b9b56adcdf56ff013421c50d0721d29fa08f43a` is that commit regardless of where you got it. So it's not such a big deal if a repo moves around, or came from a dodgy source; someone has a copy of a repo with that commit in it, it's almost certainly the code I'm talking about when I talk about that commit. (Note that all this is not the case for information *outside* of the repo, such as in GitHub wikis or issues.)
So put your code up on GitHub, or GitLab, or Bitbucket, or on any other site that looks as if it's not going to vanish too soon and when you reference it give not just the hosting location but the *commit ID* of the commit in the repo containing the code used in your paper. The commit ID ensures that regardless of the source your code is identified, and being on GitHub (or any other major provider) makes it likely that it will be easy to find and download the repo. But even if it vanishes off GitHub for some reason (which is unlikely unless you deliberately delete it), if there's enough identifying information in the repo and in your paper (e.g., if the paper's author and title are mentioned in the repo) a web search may find it, and the commit ID will provide verification that the correct repo has been found.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/26
| 865
| 3,699
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student in a 3-4 year program (UK), nearing the end of my first year.
I want to stay in academia, so I want to have good LORs. I was wondering how to earn good LORs that I may need in 1.5years (at the earliest) for postdoc applications, from someone other than my supervisor (obviously they should write one).
I dont have a secondary/co supervisor, so that is not an option. Indeed, there aren't really any professors in my department working in my subfield.
* I suppose I'd need to develop a professional relationship with a Professor at another department. How do I go around doing this? My work is theoretical so collaborations don't seem standard (at least my supervisor hasn't suggested this).
* Is there added value in the letter coming from a PI at a different university?
* My subfield is interdisciplinary, should I aim to get a LOR from someone with background in the field opposite to mine?<issue_comment>username_1: First and foremost, you should concentrate on doing good work, and let positive judgment from others flow from the quality of your professionalism and your work output. Also, when you are a PhD student, you should be careful about engaging in "impression management" since it can detract from your candour in identifying your own areas for development and seeking help to improve your work (and actually that's also true for people in higher positions too).
With those two caveats in place, one thing you can do here is to take actions to form a broader network of people who know about you and your work. There are a number of actions you could take to do this, such as:
1. Reconsidering opportunities for collaboration or multidisciplinary engagement in your research (e.g., publishing a joint paper with an academic, etc.);
2. Seeking opportunities for joint research work with academics at your university or another university;
3. Regulary attending appropriate talk/seminar series at your university and giving occasional talks yourself to let people know about your research
4. Asking to attend research committees that arrange research activities in your faculty (even just as an observer, since you are only a student);
5. Undertaking teaching/tutorial work for one or more academics in your faculty; or
6. Starting up a PhD student discussion group on a broad academic topic of interest to you and others, and asking an academic with knowledge in that field to be the patron of the group (attending meetings, giving advice and opinions, etc.).
All of these are things you could consider doing that could potentially expand the network of academics who are familiar with you and your work. Bear in mind that any activity you do has an opportunity/time cost, but consider the above as things that could enhance your PhD program and your broader academic network.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Like username_1 I'd be a bit concerned that putting yourself about more than is reasonable would backfire as people push back against what's perceivable as over-ambitiousness.
You need to accept (I know it's hard for initiatory people) that progress in academia is perforce collegial and even the most obvious improvements demand due consultation with others - with the dumb and apathetic as much as with the bright and positive.
In this vein I'd explore, with other positive students firstly and of course with your supervisor and postgraduate studies dean, the possibility of your department's students attending seminars on your research area at another nearby university and vice-versa.
You have to play this one very coolly and carefully. Be prepared for resistance from your own department: it happens.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/26
| 543
| 2,315
|
<issue_start>username_0: In mathematics, suppose we have a PhD who worked on a very spefic topic X during their PhD thesis. When they become a postdoc, they'll likely work on the same thing or related subjects. However, let's say after they have become a faculty member since quite some while ago, let's say more than a decade after finishing their PhD, and they have still been publishing papers on X only.
My question is: will this be looked down upon? Will this cause trouble in future promotion?<issue_comment>username_1: There is too little information to judge. If they have been productive and their publication record shows progress in that narrow field and provides insight to others then no. But if it is a dead-end niche (hard to judge), then perhaps (but not a definite yes).
And, if they have been at it for a decade or more then they are probably a tenured associate professor (US system), so it doesn't matter a lot to them.
Moreover, if they were in at the beginning of a substantive development in the field, then it would be entirely natural to keep following those threads.
Note that if they keep publishing papers in X, then the reviewers are continuously judging that their work is fine, assuming reputable journals.
Promotion, say to Full Professor is hard to judge, since it is done by peers who form their own judgements. The individual needs to make their own case as is true for everyone. Not publishing would likely prejudice the case.
If you want to work in that area, then they are probably just the right person to work with as they likely have a lot of insight that they can pass along.
But everyone gets to judge whether they look up or down on others and it is often for the wrong reasons.
When I was a doctoral student I had a friend who was an (early career) associate professor in that math department. He predicted he would never make Full, since the standards were so high. Happily, he was wrong and retired as a Full Professor.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Ultimately it depends on the merits of that research. There is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing the same line of research as in your PhD, so long as that leads to fruitful research discoveries later on. Doing so could just be a sign that you picked a great PhD topic.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/27
| 627
| 2,448
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the reviewers comment. A comment from one of the referees was as follows
"Check the proof of theorem x"
Does this mean the theorem is wrong, it should be just rechecked for typos or is it just to make sure it is correct?
Additional info: The theorem is one that I have proved myself.<issue_comment>username_1: Since the theorem is one you have proved yourself, it should be included in the paper (either in the body or an appendix, depending on its importance to the main stream of argument) or it should be referenced if you already published it in another paper. If it is already in the paper, I would recommend you take the instruction of the referee at face value --- check the proof to satisfy yourself that it is correct and clear, and make any revisions you need to make to correct/clarify. Here is an example of what your response to the referee might look like:
>
> **Referee:** Check the proof of Theorem 4
>
>
> **Agree - Minor edit:** We have re-checked the proof of Theorem 4 as requested. We are satisfied that this proof is correct (though if the referee has any specific concerns we are happy to consider them further). In the course of reviewing the proof we decided to add some further clarification to aid understanding of our use of the Lehmann–Scheffé theorem (pp. 27-28).
>
>
>
and here is another example of what it might look like if you make no revision:
>
> **Referee:** Check the proof of Theorem 4
>
>
> **Agree - No revision:** We have re-checked the proof of Theorem 4 as requested. We are satisfied that this proof is correct (though if the referee has any specific concerns we are happy to consider them further). At present we do not propose to make any revision to this theorem, but we welcome any specific deficiencies in the proof being drawn to our attention.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As a referee, I would never purposefully put such an incredibly vague comment. However, I almost sent a referee report recently with `{\color{red}\Huge Start reading at section 2.2.}` because I had at some point stopped reading at that position in the article and wanted to remember where to start my refereeing work again. (Thankfully I saw it when looking at the pdf of the report.)
It's possible the referee just jotted that down to remind themselves to look at it again, then forgot to go through and check that theorem's proof.
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/07/27
| 445
| 2,068
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have done an experiment on fake news detection.
Now I want to use other approaches' experiment results for comparison using the same data set.
Do I need to redo their experiment to obtain the experiment results?
Or can I use their experiment results in their paper with citations?
If so, please leave the relevant rules to let me refer to.
Sorry for my confusing writing.
In my research, I use machine learning to predict fake news.
There are some metrics to evaluate machine learning performance, such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. What I want to do is compare our model's performance to the others(on the same dataset and the same ratio of train set and test set). Can I use their experiment results, which are accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, in their paper with the citations?<issue_comment>username_1: Of course you can compare to their data. I would even go as far as to say: you *should* compare your results to published data. That is the entire reason that scientific research is published.
Obviously you should cite all the papers you compare to, and make it absolutely clear where the data comes from.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I can't answer confidently without knowing more about the situation, but as a general principle, using their published results for comparison is entirely appropriate. Redoing their experiment is also appropriate, but you just need to think about the cost/benefit tradeoff.
If their published results contain all the information you need and you're not worried about their correctness, then redoing their experiment probably doesn't provide much benefit to you. I would probably start out by using the results given, and then consider redoing their experiment if/when you run into some specific issue with it. If you do need to redo their experiment for some reason, you might want to start out by getting in touch with the authors of the original paper, because there's always more to an experiment than can be fit into the final published paper(s).
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/27
| 674
| 3,015
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate at a US university. I have a first author publication that I worked really hard for: both data collection and creation and the actual paper itself.
However, as I am an immigrant, I changed my legal first and last name to a more American name, and the journal said they cannot make changes to the abstract after the submission deadline (which was in 2021).
I feel kind of defeated right now because I was banking on this publication assisting me in landing research positions via cold email and feel like those hours put into the lab won't be recognized.
I also don't understand why this journal won't let me change my legal name (the impact factor is around 7 so it's a decent journal), as journals like *Nature* and *Science* have allowed for author name changes as a way to be inclusive. Should I try calling instead of emailing?
**Also, how can I list this on my resume?** I feel like it would be so weird to not even have my new name on the citation, especially since I'm first author, and having to explain a relic name to my future PI. Even if I don't get asked directly, I feel like there will be some stigma. I might be overthinking, but as I am very young, this was my pride as I worked so hard for this and was banking on landing future opportunities with this under my belt.
**UPDATE** My legal name change on my online abstract was approved! Any changes to the abstract submission after the deadline was against their policy, but they made an exception for me, so I'm very happy! I feel like the most important takeaway for people who are in my situation (if you ever view this question) is to ask nicely yet maintain professionalism so that they take you seriously. Best of luck to anyone else who is in my position!<issue_comment>username_1: Of course you can compare to their data. I would even go as far as to say: you *should* compare your results to published data. That is the entire reason that scientific research is published.
Obviously you should cite all the papers you compare to, and make it absolutely clear where the data comes from.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I can't answer confidently without knowing more about the situation, but as a general principle, using their published results for comparison is entirely appropriate. Redoing their experiment is also appropriate, but you just need to think about the cost/benefit tradeoff.
If their published results contain all the information you need and you're not worried about their correctness, then redoing their experiment probably doesn't provide much benefit to you. I would probably start out by using the results given, and then consider redoing their experiment if/when you run into some specific issue with it. If you do need to redo their experiment for some reason, you might want to start out by getting in touch with the authors of the original paper, because there's always more to an experiment than can be fit into the final published paper(s).
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/27
| 1,051
| 4,358
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it okay to include the classic group pictures from conferences, workshops and colleagues at the end of a thesis for memory reasons?<issue_comment>username_1: In a thesis, you want to be clear that the work therein is unambiguously attributed to you, and adding a group picture does not help with this in any way. You can always acknowledge others in the appropriate section.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I see no reason why not. Although, rather than the end, why not add them to the acknowledgements section (which is often at the start).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: A doctoral thesis is a public-facing document. A copy of your thesis will likely be shelved on display (or cataloged and made available to anyone on request) at your university’s library. It will also likely be accessible online. Have you considered whether all the people in the photos you want to include really want their likeness preserved in perpetuity in such a public way, perhaps accompanied by some kitschy, sentimental caption, or some joke that seemed amusing to you at the time of writing? Some undoubtedly wouldn’t mind, but others would, just as surely. If it were my photo you were adding, I probably wouldn’t find it “okay”.
My conclusion is that it’s a bad idea, for privacy reasons alone. There is no need to ask your advisor, nor would copyright or whether this is permitted by university regulations make any difference to my opinion here.
As for the photos, you can commemorate them in a variety of ways, even attaching them to your private copy of your thesis if that’s something that makes you happy.
Good luck with the thesis writing, and sorry for being a curmudgeon about your question. ;-)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Firstly, I am assuming that group pictures means pictures of *your* research group and not simply a picture of a group of notables of your profession at a conference/social event with you amongst them.
Is there a good reason for taking a photo of your research group and keeping it ?
Yes, if you toiled in the trenches with these people for years.
Is there a good reason to add such a picture to your doctoral thesis ?
No.
The thesis is the final distillate of your work *from a purely academic perspective*. Any benefits from being in a good group - or even in a group with one or two good individuals - will show themselves amply in your final work. Doing your work honestly in bad days and creatively in good days is the best tribute to the human surround at your department.
Your putting a photo of your contemporaries (worse still, a selection of such photos) in your printed thesis is going to make an external examiner wonder if this candidate has been enjoying themselves too much and likely leeching from others around them throughout the research programme - the photos being a sort of tacit acknowledgement of their embarrassing mountain of educational debt.
So if you plan on pictures in your thesis, prepare for a savage external exam.
On pictures included in a PhD thesis, the only exception I would allow would be one of a close friend/colleague, supervisor, parent/family member or old school teacher who died during your programme. And this would of course be a sober portrait (of them, not you) with years of birth and death and a one sentence note on their life's values. The picture to appear on the dedication page, of course, along with others deceased, *In Memoriam*.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I'd say go for it, just check with your advisor and the other people who appear in the photos. It's a little informal, but unless your specific field or school is particularly full of themselves, I don't think that's really a bad thing.
Realistically, unless you become very well known or you have a profoundly-important new result, the number of people who will ever read your dissertation is probably rather small. Most people who are interested in your work will read the published papers; outside of your committee, only people who are really closely building on what you did are likely to go through the dissertation itself. So, yes, it will be public and *could* be subject to scrutiny at any time, but also it's mostly for you and your mentors, and it's kind of up to you (collectively) to decide what you want to put in there.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/07/27
| 1,263
| 5,758
|
<issue_start>username_0: I spent a lot of time during my post-doc doing a big-data analysis using cloud credits paid for by a grant. I got the research conducted, written up, and submitted to a journal. The modeling I did is not possible to conduct outside of a cloud environment.
Now, the paper has spent a long time in review, and that grant has expired, the cloud account has been closed, and all of the data has been deleted (although I still have the code).
The reviews are mostly positive, although some of them are requesting minor tweaks to the model, which is not possible. I also really don't think that the tweaks they are suggesting would improve the model.
What I am wondering is, how candid should I be about the grant situation? How much should I focus on the science versus my excuses for why I simply can't update the model?
Should I:
* Focus on the science and explain why I think the proposed changes to the models likely wouldn't affect the outcome?
* Discuss the grant details and tell the reviewers that our grant/cloud access expired, and therefore I can't re-run the models?
* Some combination, i.e., tell the reviewers that their proposed changes likely wouldn't affect the model findings, focusing on the science, but then tell the editor about the grant/cloud situation?
I'm also wondering what happens in other fields where experiments can only happen once, and it is impossible to update the findings.<issue_comment>username_1: I would recommend stating the reasons why you don't think tweaking the model will make much difference but also mention that you no longer have access to the computing facilities necessary to re-run the model. You could also say that modifying the model could be part of future work (by yourself or others).
It's not unusual to be unable to repeat an experiment at a later date. I've done research with explosives. The test specimens, and sometimes the instrumentation, no longer exists after the test. Or at least is in very small pieces spread across a test site. Sometimes equipment is damaged and some data cannot be recovered. It costs a lot to do such tests and repeating them is simply not feasible financially.
Ultimately either the tweaks are essential and the work will be rejected, or the work is satisfactory as is and will be published (at this journal or another one).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: A frequent response in experimental fields goes something like:
"We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to use the 'X' technique, and do believe this could lead to an interesting extension of our current results. However, due to the unavailability of 'Y' resource, we are currently unable to undertake this study. We have, however, run a preliminary analysis\* along the lines suggested, and found that it does not alter our main results significantly.
...some details/description of the analysis "
\*The 'preliminary analysis' is often just a theoretical justification or back-of-envelope estimation. Its purpose is to establish that the suggested changes won't drastically affect your main claim(s). Including this in the response shows that you've genuinely tried to incorporate feedback within the available resources.
Be mindful of the conventions in your field though; @Kimball and @Anyon have pointed out that 'preliminary analysis' would convey something quite significant in their fields. If so, the response above may come across as flippant/disrespectful, and you may consider making a weaker claim, such as 'we estimate', 'we expect', 'our initial assessment is...'
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: As an addendum to the other answers, I would also suggest including a brief note about the total computing resources (CPU time, RAM, disk space) you've spent on modeling the problem in your paper (and possibly a more detailed description of the software and cloud computing environments used e.g. in an appendix). This has several potential advantages:
* It lets the reader (including reviewers) know that the modeling process was slow and costly, and not easily repeated with minor tweaks to the model, thus explaining why you have not explored such model variations further.
* It provides valuable information to anyone interested in reproducing or extending your results about the effort likely involved in doing so. In particular, if your reviewers underestimated the effort, it's likely that other readers may do so as well. Letting them know that your model was expensive to run may save them from wasting time and money on a project they cannot finish, which they may thank you for later.
* Conversely, it's possible that some other group might be able to carry out similar modeling much more easily, either because they have more money, faster computers (perhaps because they're reading your paper 10 or 20 years later) or simply more efficient modeling software. (Never discount the latter possibility, especially if you're using off-the-shelf software. It's amazing how often even minor algorithmic improvements can speed up a model by multiple orders of magnitude.) Knowing that the modeling task was challenging for you, with the software and computing resources you had, might inspire someone to write a followup paper showing how to model your system more efficiently (which, of course, would directly benefit your group too) or even to offer to collaborate with you on the problem.
In general, if an experiment you've performed was difficult to carry out for some reason, you should always make that clear in your paper — not merely to brag about doing it, or as an excuse for not doing it more times, but also as a challenge for others to find ways to do it more cheaply and efficiently. That is how methodology advances.
Upvotes: 5
|
2022/07/27
| 784
| 3,275
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a fourth-year undergraduate math major. I come from a not-so-big school, where the mathematics department is not funded that well. Recently, a professor asked if I would be interested in becoming a TA for a course being taught next semester (it is pretty unusual for undergraduate students to become TAs at my university.) As it turns out, the position shall be **unpaid** (simply because the department lacks funding, and does not compensate even some PhD student TAs.)
I shall be applying to graduate schools in the US & Canada this year, and the only reason I considered the TA position is that it could perhaps make me a more competitive applicant to PhD programs. Is that true? I'm sure I'll have opportunities to be a TA later in my life, especially as a graduate student, so I'm not missing out even if I let go of this *opportunity.*
Besides, I shall be busy with coursework and grad-school applications this semester, and the TA-ship would only add extra work and take away time. I'm not sure if it would be worth the investment of my time to become a TA this semester, just to add to my CV for grad-school applications.<issue_comment>username_1: Without really knowing all the details and the personalities, it is difficult to make this decision for you.
It is true that you can gain good experience from being a TA. For starters, you will be understanding the subject matter much better, even if you were only grading.
I am not so sure about making you a more competitive applicant as so few undergraduates are ever allowed to be a TA at a university that can pay for its students' labor.
Your last clause gives the reasons why you might want to forego this. You will be busy with other things and TAing can be a time drain, especially if you like it.
You did not mention the effects and the importance of the relationship with the professor that asks you to consider TAing.
In balance and in my personal view, you should find a nice way of saying no.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **You should not.** This is an exploitative offer.
>
> and the only reason I considered the TA position is that it could perhaps make me a more competitive applicant to PhD programs
>
>
>
Anecdotally, I have heard from professors that this doesn't factor into decisions at all. However, this could be very different in your field/sub-field. And you are correct there are likely opportunities later to get teaching experience.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: From the standpoint of US graduate admissions in math, you should certainly decline. I have served on our Ph.D. admissions committee (I am in the US), and admissions are based primarily on **research potential.** Teaching experience is not required or expected.
This teaching experience would help your application marginally, if at all. From the standpoint of your grad school applications, the other time commitments you describe are much more important.
The only reason I'd consider taking this on is if you were extremely interested in the job *for its own sake*. (And even if you were, the lack of pay is objectionable.) As you say you'll have opportunities in the future, so I would recommend focusing on your own studies for now.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/27
| 593
| 2,510
|
<issue_start>username_0: I defended last month, got my PhD and am about to run out of funding. I've been applying to postdocs for close to a year and have only had one near-hire (something happened with their funding) and three interviews. One thing I've heard from a few sources is that, at least in this field, graduate and postdoc research should line up very well. My advisor even said it would be "a waste of time" to apply to postdocs that don't line up with my research extremely closely. Is this true?
I know that in other fields, like bio-med, it's actually encouraged to do something totally different. It seems ineffecient to only hire close match-ups.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> My advisor even said it would be "a waste of time" to apply to postdocs that don't line up with my research extremely closely
>
>
>
I think that this statement is, in general, incorrect. As a PI, I am looking for postdocs who are skilled and motivated to contribute to the research that is going on in my group. It takes good knowledge of maths, good understanding of quantum physics (at BSc level) and excellent computational skills. As soon as these boxes are ticked, I am looking for soft skills, presentation skills, writing skills, motivation — all things which describe a good researcher, rather than an expert specialised in a specific narrow subfield of research.
So I would absolutely hire a motivated candidate from another subfield of quantum physics, if they are interested in working with me. I know colleagues who will do the same.
If you are interested in a specific PI, lab or project — do not hesitate to apply. Good luck.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Hmmm… Although I think the comment of your supervisor is overly pessimistic, the odds are you will much more likely find something in your area of expertise, or at least in your broad area of expertise.
The odds of being hired by someone in - say - material science are small unless you have some expertise that is valuable to this PI, but it may very well happen that you do have this expertise, or at least part of the required expertise. Maybe the ideal candidates knows “Software A” and material science very well, but no candidates with both skills are acceptable so the PI might be interested in someone with a lot of experience with Software A.
So while not a waste of time, the onus is on you in the cover letter to highlight how your skill sets will be valuable for the advertised position.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/27
| 1,428
| 5,963
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was studying in medical university in Russia for two years and was in the top of my class, but circumstances led me to Wales, UK around 4 years ago (I'd soon be eligible to apply for a UK citizenship) and I want to continue studying medicine here.
Looking at the medical college requirements I understand that I need GSCEs and A-levels to be passed successfully. Frankly, it is overwhelming for me to cover 11 years of studying and I am afraid I can't do this.
I've tried to find alternative ways into school of medicine, but have no clear idea how to do it.
Few alternatives I found are:
* **Apprenticeship**. As far as I understand there is half accepted way to work and study and as a result to get some or most of GSCEs and A-levels covered. But I can't find whether these results are accepted by any uni whatsoever.
* **Gateway to medicine programs**. To my best knowledge, these are including few years of studying in college which guarantees you to be admitted into uni. But again can't find whether this is universal thing or every university has it's own rules. And also, do I have to pass GSCEs and A-leves or can I somehow transfer my foreign results.
* To become a nurse and somehow eventually to be accepted to the university (this isn't so clear whether this is possible).
One important thing is that I'd likely to start studying only when I'd get citizenship as I don't have enough funds to pay for the courses as international student.<issue_comment>username_1: You will probably find that most medical schools have a section that describes the entry requirements for overseas students. For example, my own university's medical school's entry criteria say:
>
> For all applicants, other qualifications are also considered for admission i.e. Scottish Highers, Irish Leaving Certificate, the International and European Baccalaureate and some national qualifications from students applying from other countries. A number of qualifications, (including but not limited to BTECs, T-Levels and Access Courses) are not accepted.
>
>
>
<https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/medicine/undergraduate/medicine-admissions/a100-mbchb-policy>
I recommend you email the admissions tutors at the medical schools of your choice (or possible all medical schools in the country) to specifically discuss your situation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Admissions officers at all UK universities have a significant amount of information on educational systems around the globe and the mapping of a student's background to UK equivalents and are able to measure each applicants ability or academic level on admission.
Some examples of the information available might be:
* [UCAS Guide to World Qualifications 2015](https://www.ucas.com/sites/default/files/2015-international-qualifications.pdf)
* [UCAS Tariff Calculator 2022](https://www.ucas.com/ucas/tariff-calculator)
* [ECCTIS](https://www.ecctis.com/)
There are also many British citizens that have not obtained the necessary qualifications when leaving school but decide they want to study in higher education later in life. (Often known as Mature Entry students). The UK education system has ways of enabling their entry to their desired course. One such route is a one year "Access to HE" course at a local college. These are usually accredited by a local university to certificate the late learner's academic level in a short time. There is a [factsheet available](https://www.medschools.ac.uk/media/2655/access-courses-infosheet.pdf) regarding Access courses for medicine specifically.
For applicants from overseas whose qualifications are of the right level but not done in English, then some form of English language qualification would be required. One such certification for this would be [IELTS](https://www.ielts.org/), but there are others that are equally recognised.
As mentioned in other answers, your best route to detailed information would be to consult an admissions officer at the University of your choice, or attend an "Open Day" event at a nearby university and speak to staff in person. Most universities have such recruitment events throughout the year.
I regularly speak to potential applicants in similar positions at open day events and will probably be handling their applications at some time during the year. This is not an unusual or abnormal situation, particularly considering the ebb and flow of world events over the recent past.
Addressing the issue of an applicant who has already completed some of their course elsewhere (in the UK or overseas), some courses permit Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL or APEL or APCL) to allow someone to enter at a later stage of a course (such as only take the final year or skip the first year) by transferring credits, but this usually requires documentation such as a full curriculum specification and results transcript to be presented, often in notarised translation form.
Medicine is a special case; above I have addressed the general subject independent procedures. For medical schools, the best source of information is [The Medical Schools Council](https://www.medschools.ac.uk/studying-medicine/making-an-application/faqs). Unfortunately it is not possible to transfer credits from overseas into a UK medical school and therefore entry must be to the first year for an overseas applicant.
I hope I have covered all the necessary points both generally and specifically raised by your question.
---
Not part of a general answer, but specific to Cardiff:
There does not appear to be a full-time access to medicine course in Cardiff, but there is a part-time one. There are such courses offered in other cities. There are also online distance learning access to medicine courses available in the UK for home study. Cardiff does have a graduate entry scheme to medicine and this can be another route. It depends if you are willing to re-locate what option choices you have.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/27
| 1,256
| 5,143
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently unaffiliated (but soon will be). I'm submitting a manuscript at the Journal of Multivariate Analysis (JMVA), and it shows me these two options:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DVOIt.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cygSC.png)
I think the first option is out of the question, as I'll have to pay for it, so I'm thinking of choosing the second one. Am I right in doing so?
Also, I've never seen this paying option before for paper submission, why am I seeing it here?
Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: You will probably find that most medical schools have a section that describes the entry requirements for overseas students. For example, my own university's medical school's entry criteria say:
>
> For all applicants, other qualifications are also considered for admission i.e. Scottish Highers, Irish Leaving Certificate, the International and European Baccalaureate and some national qualifications from students applying from other countries. A number of qualifications, (including but not limited to BTECs, T-Levels and Access Courses) are not accepted.
>
>
>
<https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/medicine/undergraduate/medicine-admissions/a100-mbchb-policy>
I recommend you email the admissions tutors at the medical schools of your choice (or possible all medical schools in the country) to specifically discuss your situation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Admissions officers at all UK universities have a significant amount of information on educational systems around the globe and the mapping of a student's background to UK equivalents and are able to measure each applicants ability or academic level on admission.
Some examples of the information available might be:
* [UCAS Guide to World Qualifications 2015](https://www.ucas.com/sites/default/files/2015-international-qualifications.pdf)
* [UCAS Tariff Calculator 2022](https://www.ucas.com/ucas/tariff-calculator)
* [ECCTIS](https://www.ecctis.com/)
There are also many British citizens that have not obtained the necessary qualifications when leaving school but decide they want to study in higher education later in life. (Often known as Mature Entry students). The UK education system has ways of enabling their entry to their desired course. One such route is a one year "Access to HE" course at a local college. These are usually accredited by a local university to certificate the late learner's academic level in a short time. There is a [factsheet available](https://www.medschools.ac.uk/media/2655/access-courses-infosheet.pdf) regarding Access courses for medicine specifically.
For applicants from overseas whose qualifications are of the right level but not done in English, then some form of English language qualification would be required. One such certification for this would be [IELTS](https://www.ielts.org/), but there are others that are equally recognised.
As mentioned in other answers, your best route to detailed information would be to consult an admissions officer at the University of your choice, or attend an "Open Day" event at a nearby university and speak to staff in person. Most universities have such recruitment events throughout the year.
I regularly speak to potential applicants in similar positions at open day events and will probably be handling their applications at some time during the year. This is not an unusual or abnormal situation, particularly considering the ebb and flow of world events over the recent past.
Addressing the issue of an applicant who has already completed some of their course elsewhere (in the UK or overseas), some courses permit Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL or APEL or APCL) to allow someone to enter at a later stage of a course (such as only take the final year or skip the first year) by transferring credits, but this usually requires documentation such as a full curriculum specification and results transcript to be presented, often in notarised translation form.
Medicine is a special case; above I have addressed the general subject independent procedures. For medical schools, the best source of information is [The Medical Schools Council](https://www.medschools.ac.uk/studying-medicine/making-an-application/faqs). Unfortunately it is not possible to transfer credits from overseas into a UK medical school and therefore entry must be to the first year for an overseas applicant.
I hope I have covered all the necessary points both generally and specifically raised by your question.
---
Not part of a general answer, but specific to Cardiff:
There does not appear to be a full-time access to medicine course in Cardiff, but there is a part-time one. There are such courses offered in other cities. There are also online distance learning access to medicine courses available in the UK for home study. Cardiff does have a graduate entry scheme to medicine and this can be another route. It depends if you are willing to re-locate what option choices you have.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/28
| 868
| 3,822
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm struggling with how to present a research article. The research questions were along the lines of "Does the difference between X and Y predict Z?" It turns out that the difference between A and B predicts Z better than the difference between X and Y. We explore reasons for this finding in the discussion section. Should the literature review (which comes before the research questions) address previous research on the difference between A and B? Can I put some of that literature in the introduction? Or is it disorienting to then come to the research questions and find that they're only about X and Y, not A and B? Should the research on A and B go in the discussion section instead? The field is education, if that matters.<issue_comment>username_1: If you actually set out to study:
>
> "Does the difference between X and Y predict Z?"
>
>
>
...you would never be able to find:
>
> It turns out that the difference between A and B predicts Z better than the difference between X and Y.
>
>
>
There's just no way that this conclusion occurs by accident.
At some point in your project, perhaps your goals changed, but you certainly must have studied which difference, A-B or X-Y, best predicted Z, so that's your actual research question for the study.
If you actually also tested C-D and Q-R and all sorts of other possible predictors, you should report those as well. You should definitely make clear what variables you worked with and what your procedure was for testing them, as your study has very different implications if you just kept testing different things until you found one that was ["significant"](https://xkcd.com/882/).
To summarize and address the question you asked, your framing of the paper should reflect the actual study you did, not the study you wanted/expected to do. You should contextualize all the variables you measured and tested, regardless of the results. You should make clear what results you might have expected for all of those variables ahead of time based on previous research in the literature, including literature that is contradictory. Your discussion should explain how your results, both positive and negative, affect your field and suggest future work. Your discussion should also make clear possible weaknesses in your work, including the possibility that testing multiple hypotheses raises the likelihood that the relationships you find are false-positives (or, alternatively, if you correct for testing multiple hypotheses, how the reduced power in your study makes it likely you've missed some true positives).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your introduction should preview and motivate your work. Your statement that the literature review comes before the research questions seems like a bad choice in your case, because the previous literature is off to the side of what you studied. It seems to me that a clear way to organize your introduction would be:
>
> It is important to predict Z because [reasons, citations]. Previous researchers have attempted to predict Z using the difference X-Y [citations]. Our main result is that the difference A-B is a better predictor of Z than X-Y is ...
>
>
>
Of course, as other answers have pointed out, you should make should be concerned if this hypothesis was formulated after you analyzed the data. Ideally, you would collect new data on (A,B,X,Y,Z) and see whether the superiority of A-B over X-Y held up in the new data.
If this isn't possible, you should at least analyze how many different pairs (A,B) you could have considered as predictors and do the appropriate statistical analysis to make sure you aren't making the error of [this XKCD](https://xkcd.com/882/). The norms regarding how careful you should be here will vary from field to field.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/28
| 961
| 4,145
|
<issue_start>username_0: Early this year, we submitted a manuscript to a journal and heard the revision suggestions back very quickly from two referees. Both the two referees suggest some revision while remaining generally positive about our idea. Last month, we resubmitted our revised manuscript and the editor sent it to the two original referees.
As suggested in the submission system, one of the referees sent the report back **yesterday** while the other referee has not yet. Then the editor sent our revised manuscript to a third referee **today**, which is a bit out of my understanding: I know sometimes the editors may send a revised manuscript to a new referee to hear some new voice about a manuscript. However, in my case, the editor didn't seek a new referee right after they received our revised manuscript, but until they heard back from an original referee about the revised manuscript.
I am trying to decipher the underlying meaning of this action: The editor may hear something terrible from the newly-arrived report yesterday so they wanna make use of another referee to see if the bad words make sense. Or the editor just forgot to send the revised manuscript to a new referee, and they remembered to do so just now.
Could anyone also provide some thoughts about the editor's action here?<issue_comment>username_1: The only way to be sure is to ask the editor. There are a ton of possible reasons. The one that comes first to mind is that the referee expressed some doubt both about the paper and about their own ability to review it properly (expertise, time constraints, ...). So, the editor wanted more advice.
But the editor gonna do what the editor gonna do. They want some consensus that the paper meets the journal's standards and they probably don't have it yet.
There are about a million pathways through the review system and since there are some loops in the process it is not easy to answer these questions from afar.
Ask the editor or have patience that something is happening and you haven't been rejected. And asking might not get you an answer also. Be prepared for that. Patience is suggested.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This happens (not so infrequently) when one of the referees indicates she or he is not available or otherwise unwilling to review the revised version.
As many take vacations at this time of year, it could well be that one referee is on holidays and cannot submit a report within the recommended timelines. Of course there are lots of other reasons: an obvious one these days is that one referee needs to isolate or rest because of some illness.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There are a million possible reasons one could try to enumerate, but at the end of the day it comes down to this:
**There is nothing you can do about it at this stage.**
As a consequence, here is my advice:
Move your brain power to other projects and wait till the editor sends your paper back with any feedback. You won't find out the precise reasons for all of the moves behind the screen, and nor is there any use to you if you did know the reasons. So, stop spending time and emotional energy on the issue. The time will come when you will learn, and in the meantime work on something else productive, such as your next manuscript.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Here's an example I remember.
* Journal policy is to get two reviews per paper.
* During the initial stage of invitations, two reviewers agreed to do it, but only one submitted a review.
* We decide to send the manuscript for revision anyway, because the alternative is to invite another reviewer from square one, which at least doubles the review time.
* After the manuscript is revised, we invite a second reviewer.
Your description reminds me of another paper, which went like normal except the reviewer said "I'm an expert on [this part of the manuscript], but not really on [another part of the manuscript]" - although in this case I would imagine it's more likely that the editors will invite a new reviewer prior to revision, and the paper simply takes longer to review.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/29
| 995
| 3,947
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently defended my PhD (though not technically graduated as in not had a ceremony yet) and am applying for funding for my postdoc. I have a mentor for the postdoc and even though I am not funded/employed by the postdoc advisor yet (instead living off remaining scholarship funding from my PhD, which thankfully hasn't run out yet despite my successful defence), I am (as I am a theorist) already working on things related to my postdoc project, potentially even publish some results before properly moving to the new institution.
I do wonder now how I will add this time period to my CV eventually? There is a clear time stamp to the end of my PhD through the defence, but I am not a postdoc as in "awarded PhD and on a position". Do I disregard that and call myself a postdoc as I am working on my postdoc project? Do I leave a gap? Some third option?
[I doubt it would matter but my field for both postdoc and PhD is quantum theory (though the postdoc is not a continuation of the PhD project but a bit of a jump).]<issue_comment>username_1: There is no reason that you can't put a couple of sentences into a CV. Say that you successfully defended your dissertation on 'date'. Say that the official awarding of the PhD will be on 'date'. Say that your postdoc has been approved and will officially begin on 'date'.
Officially you are probably still a PhD student who has completed all requirements. The postdoc is still unofficial, even if you are doing the work for it.
After things change, and you pass the various dates you can update the CV.
Unofficially, if your advisor and university don't disagree, you are Dr. nsnfn, but don't commit that to official or semiofficial documents just yet. It earns you at least one extra hug from your parents.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I see nothing wrong is saying what you really are doing now, e.g.
***July 2019 - July 2022** Doctoral programme on quantum theory.
Thesis Title: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .*
***July - September 2022** Preliminary explorative work on subsequent fellowship proposal pending decision on funding application from SRC.*
Honestly, you are worrying about nothing here.
Maybe you need to take a short holiday, climb a few mountains with a dog and swim a lot.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It may be appropriate to still refer to yourself as a PhD student if you have not technically graduated yet and are still receiving a fellowship, and assuming the transitional period between your defense and the official graduation is fairly short (say, a month or two). That depends a bit on your local norms and academic culture, so ask around at your institution. Whether it’s in your interest to represent your situation in such a way is not entirely clear to me, but at least it’s a possibility worth considering and would resolve the status dilemma.
Otherwise, if you do not opt to represent yourself as having the status of PhD student, then, if we are being honest, at this point in time you are simply an unemployed person — specifically, one who is working in an unofficial capacity on a research project for their postdoc that will be starting in the next few months. And to be clear, there is absolutely no shame in having such a status, which is very common. But regardless, you should not call yourself a postdoc, because that would be a clear misrepresentation of the facts.
As for what to write in your CV about this period, I’d just leave this period blank if it’s a short transition of 2-3 months, while also mentioning your pending employment as a postdoc along with the starting date for that. I don’t think there’s a stigma for having a short employment gap in circumstances such as these. At least that’s the case for academia — things may be different in industry, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to comment about that.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/29
| 510
| 2,158
|
<issue_start>username_0: My dissertation advisor & Chair was professor A. He all of a sudden was severely ill and left the program right before I proposed my dissertation study. I built the study under his supervision, including part of the data analysis, but he didn't have a chance to read even the first draft of the proposal.
Professor B (from my department) took over as the committee chair. The dissertation was not exactly her area of specialty. She served as the chair (someone needs to and the department decided that she would take the role) and arranged the defense by signing off on paperwork and making sure the procedure functioned. Her advising role did not involve major, valuable feedback. She's acting like any other committee member by asking a few questions and checking the final revision.
I thanked both advisors in the acknowledgment.
Would thanking professor A in the dedication be too much? I frequently see people thank families and friends but advisors/professors are always in the acknowledgment. Also, this might make professor B feel bad if she sees the dedication.<issue_comment>username_1: Given that your advisor A became sick and left the university, I see no problem with dedicating your thesis to him and thank your committee and especially advisor B at length for *rescuing* you. In a certain sense, you can claim that this was the last thesis ever written under A, so that a dedication seems appropriate.
However, do not underestimate cultural differences. What is appropriate in my culture might not be appropriate in your culture. In the US, dedications and acknowledgments are in general not taken as serious as you seem to take them. There, you might be overthinking the issue.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Absolutely, do dedicate it to your former advisor if that's who you most want to honour that way.
In your acknowledgements, be careful to be clear about contributions but also to be clearly sincerely grateful for each. You don't need to harp on about who has done more or less, don't say someone has "only" rescued you. Be positive, graceful, and succinct about everyone you mention.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/29
| 1,064
| 4,555
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am submitting an introductory paper of a large project to an Elsevier journal. All the main contributors to the different working packages are co-authoring the paper. They are more than fifty.
The last page of the submission system asks me the names and emails of all the authors. I don’t even have all their email addresses. Moreover, it asks for the affiliations because there could be conventions with some institutions for open access, but we will choose the subscription option.
Granted that all the authors and affiliations are listed in the manuscript, is there any ethical concern if I don’t provide all fifty names and addresses to the system?
I was left out once, but still the paper correctly figures into my Scopus and Scholar profiles because my name is in the manuscript.<issue_comment>username_1: It seems to me that if these people should be authors on the paper, someone organizing the project should at minimum have this contact information for all of them. I do understand this can be a taxing administrative task in a large group.
"I don't have them" seems like a solvable problem, not a valid excuse. I don't know about this particular journal, but I've found it fairly common as a coauthor to get emails from the journal informing me of the submission at minimum. It's a way for the journal to ensure people listed as authors are aware their names are being used and gives them an avenue to communicate if necessary.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The issue here is not one of ethics, just organisational requirements and logistics for the publication process. The journal will want the email addresses of the co-authors so that it can email them to let them know that a paper has been submitted in their name. I guess it's possible the journal might allow you to proceed without that information, but I doubt it. I recommend going back to your co-authors (through whatever means you have been communicating) and organising a list of basic information like emails and affiliations.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As [@BryanKrause](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63475/bryan-krause) said in [their answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/187384/49616), if you are collaborating with so many people that not everyone knows each others names, affiliations and email addresses, then there should be (and probably is) someone in the collaboration keeping track of those things and be able to provide a list of authors to you.
However, you may also want to take a look at how bigger collaborations handle this, see e.g. this paper from the [LHCb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHCb_experiment) collaboration, one of the four large collaborations working at the particle accelerator LHC at CERN, which has more than a thousand members: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931730062X>
While all authors are listed (not doing that would clearly be unethical), only their names and affiliations are shown. Having been a member of that particular collaboration in the past, I can also tell you that I did not receive an email from the journal whenever a new paper was published by the collaboration, which happened quite often (although there were internal emails announcing it). So they probably did not enter the email addresses of all members of the collaboration. Note that the particular paper I linked above appeared in an Elsevier journal (Physics Letters B in this case), just like yours is going to. So it may make sense to figure out if it is also possible to just supply the names and affiliations in your case.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You are the "corresponding author" with the journal. Here's the [*International committee of medical journal editors'* view](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) of your responsibility in respect of providing contact information:
>
> The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary
> responsibility for communication with the journal during the
> manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The
> corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s
> administrative requirements, such as **providing details of
> authorship**...
>
>
>
(The entire ICMJE policy on authorship is worth reading, as it is quickly becoming the model policy.)
In short, this running around collecting information is exactly what a corresponding author has signed up to do.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/30
| 2,111
| 8,781
|
<issue_start>username_0: I will start my master program soon and can choose between the TU Berlin (Information System Management) and HU Berlin (Computer Science). I want to do a PhD after my master's degree with a specialization in AI. Currently I'm really interested in Explainable AI for Computer Vision.
Does the decision between those two universities — and above all the name of the degree — make an impact for a later career in academia?
I personally think that the TU Berlin (Technische Universität) has a better reputation in the field of computer science, than the HU Berlin. I just don't know if the name of the degree (since it's not directly computer science) will make a difference for my later career. Also, I think that the courses that I can choose at the TU Berlin are far more interesting for the research area I want to pursue.<issue_comment>username_1: There are always subtle implicit impacts of the words we see, but basically the name and reputation of the university will likely have a much larger impact than the name of the degree program. Also, you can always leave the name of the degree *programme* off your CV, and just say what department awarded the degree. But the main thing to focus on is what courses will you take, who will you potentially work with and get letters of reference from, and what are your chances of getting a publication or other research experience during or immediately after your degree?
Since you mention Berlin: One advantage of coming to Berlin / Germany – you can work at any university in part-time research positions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am handling PhD admissions for Computer Science at my university. My initial reaction to a master in "Information System Management" is to be very, very suspicious. That sounds like the kind of degree you get if you want to lead an IT department in a company, not like the kind of master you get as preparation for a PhD in Computer Science.
That doesn't mean I'd automatically reject, I'd at least have a look at the particular courses taken and read the statement of purpose to see what is going on. If the courses at the TU are indeed the better choice, and ideally, if you explain this to me in the SoP, I'd be perfectly happy overlooking the odd MSc name here.
Beyond PhD admissions, the title of your MSc is not going to matter for an academic career.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: The title, per se, probably makes little difference, but the content certainly does. Beyond the names, note, importantly, that Information System Management and Computer Science are two very different things. Make sure you understand the difference and choose one that it compatible with your needs.
Look, for example, at the actual curricula in both programs, especially required courses or typical research problems.
For anything in AI and anything in Computer Vision, I'd say that CS is far (far) more appropriate than ISM. ISM emphasizes management and CS emphasizes science. People in those two fields learn very different things, and their careers can be very different. CS is more likely (at least somewhat) to lead to an academic career.
---
Note that I was once part of a school, within a US university, that delivered both programs and I collaborated with some of the ISM faculty. But our interests were *very* different.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I know both schools and programs. There are good and not so good points in both. Look carefully at the curricula: which courses interest you more? Look at the professors in the programs, what do they publish? Which are the topics which interest you more? In Germany no one really cares about the name of a program, as universities try to set up "unique selling points" that stretch to the name of a program at times.
Your Master's thesis and the courses you take will be much more important than the title of the program. And as the previous answers have said: Information System *Management* and Computer Science are two different pairs of shoes.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Does the dicision between those two universities and above all the name of the degree make a impact for a later career in academia?
>
>
>
You mention academia and I can hardly comment on that area (I was in physics).
Just in case, should you switch to industry, anything "management" is suspicious to say the least. "Information Systems Management" is extra suspicious.
I managed varied IT teams and if the "Information Systems Management" studies are studies about **how to manage IT (teams/organizations)** then they are more or less worthless. After such studies you will not have any relevant experience.
If it means how to manage **IT systems** then you are basically a sysadmin and then yes, this is cool.
When hiring, I glance at the studies someone did but I am much more interested in the actual knowledge you have (including relevant hobbies). So you may want to consider to exactly explain what that "management" was, especially if it means you have technical knowledge.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You already got some good answers, but I think there is one more important point which is mainly a language issue and which should be mentioned - in particular since your main concern seems to be about the name of the program.
Apparently, "Information System Management" in the question refers to [this program](https://moseskonto.tu-berlin.de/moses/modultransfersystem/studiengaenge/anzeigen.html?studiengang=149&mkg=24781&modulliste=4151) at TU Berlin. The issue is that the English name of the program probably gives rise to different connotations than its German name, which is simply "Wirtschaftsinformatik". Since the majority of users of this site is unlikely to speak German, here is a brief explanation: "Informatik" is simply the German word for "computer science", and "Wirtschaft" is a quite generic German word which can mean various things from both business and economics.
There has been somekind of trend in Germany during the last decades to take any classical STEM program X, replace a few of the contents with anything related either to business or economics, and then call it "Wirtschafts-X". This often raises some issues and misunderstandings when you try to translate the name of such a program to English.
I think if you apply for a PhD in Germany or in German-speaking countries, the name "Wirtschaftsinformatik" is unlikely to cause you many problems as long as you have taken courses which fit the profile of the PhD that you'd like to do. If you apply in other countries and use the English notion "Information System Management" though, you might want to explain this a bit in your application.
But anyway, the most important thing will be which courses you take. The details of the program at TU Berlin are specified in the "Studien- und Prüfungsordnung" ([link](https://www.static.tu.berlin/fileadmin/www/10000000/Studiengaenge/StuPOs/Fakultaet_IV/InformationSystemManagement_M.Sc._2017.pdf); in German). I've only looked very briefly at it, but what would make me a bit wary in your case is, for instance, that all the modules "Machine Learning 1", "Machine Learning 2", and so on, are listed in the list "Fachstudium Wirtschaftsinformatik", but not in the list "Fachstudium Informatik". This might raise the question whether these courses also treat the theoretical foundations of this topic in detail, or whether they mainly focus on applications. The table on the bottom of page 352 shows that a considerable number of credit points in the program are assigned to the fields "Wirtschaft und Management" and "Wirtschaftsinformatik", and only a few are assigned to "Informatik".
I don't know how much theoretical background is typically required for a PhD in artificial intelligence - but it might be worthwhile for you to briefly double-check whether the "Wirtschaftsinformatik" program you're interested in leaves sufficiently many opportunities for in-depth theoretical courses, or whether it focusses mainly on applications.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: You are asking to quite distinct questions:
(1) Will the (prestige or reputation of the) institution matter?
(2) Will the discipline-area appellation of the degree matter?
Ad (1) Yes.
Ad (2) Depends on the person. In interviews, I just ask the person a bunch of technical questions to gauge their level of knowledge or accomplishment. I have found that this correlates only very weakly with either the prestige of their degree institution, or "in what" their degree actually was. However, some people have strong black and white opinions of the sort "all computer scientists are idiots" and in that case, it is not so good if your degree says CS.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/07/30
| 300
| 1,215
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a bachelor in electronics engineering, and I am 32 years old. I belong to a South Asian country and I want to apply for a master's degree program in Germany. But am I agewise eligible?
I have tried to explore different master's degree programs on <https://www.daad.de/en/>, but I couldn't find any information about an age limit.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no age limit for studying in Germany. In fact, it is not that uncommon for students to be as old as you (or even significantly older) when starting or continuing with university. A C1 language level might often be a requirement, though.
**EDIT**: As the question is tagged "funding" (which I did not notice when first answering), I want to add: on the DAAD website, there is some information on requirements for scholarships. They state that in most cases, there is no age limit for scholarships either, but in some cases there is a maximum amount of time that is allowed to have passed since the last degree (e.g. maximum of 5 years after the completion of the BA at the time of application).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Definitely no age limit for most places - we have students in their 50s.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/07/31
| 369
| 1,450
|
<issue_start>username_0: I do not have a PhD, nor am I pursuing one, in the United Kingdom.
What title could I be given, if I worked as a paid researcher at a university, but I was not a PhD student or PhD graduate? The level of work would be at PhD level.
It might be misleading to call myself a researcher, as I thought that only applied to either students or people that passed their PhD dissertations.<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, "Researcher" or "Independent Researcher" should be fine. There is no *official* definition and the terms are merely descriptive.
Another possibility is to use a title used by your employer for your role, if that seems suitable. Sometimes a title like "Research Associate" or such is used.
But there is no implication in the term *researcher* that you have any particular qualification. Your user name here is suitable, if that is, in fact, descriptive of what you do.
But note that it isn't actually a "title" in the sense of something conferred on you by authority like "Professor" is. It is just a description of one of your roles.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: * Research fellow
* Visiting scholar
"Research fellow" would imply a more permanent position. If you will be under someone's supervision, you could also use:
* Research assistant
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Further to @username_2's answer, I've seen "pre-doctoral research associate" and "research trainee".
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/07/31
| 2,732
| 10,851
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have an interesting (in my mind) experiment in mind: it entails e-mailing hundreds or thousands of corresponding authors, asking them to voluntarily fill out a short survey about their work.
I would obtain the e-mail addresses by scraping manuscript data from Web of Science and send automated e-mails to them. I believe this is within scope of the [terms of use](https://clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2022/03/Product%20Terms_3.2%20-%20Web%20of%20Science%20%20%20APIs%20-%2036.pdf):
>
> For Research Projects you may use the API:
>
>
> (a) to view, use, download
> and print such data fields for individual academic use;
>
>
> (b) to perform
> specific research or numerical or statistical analyses on such data to
> produce reports in support of scientific endeavors (provided for
> abstracts you must have the relevant rights by law or from the
> copyright owner for such use); [...]
>
>
>
I'm not quite sure if this would be ethical though. This kind of bulk e-mail resembles SPAM and, even though the academic value of the survey would likely be tangible to the recipients, it feels like it is crossing a line.
How would this kind of research likely be perceived?
Clarifications:
* I will be approaching my organisation's research ethics contact as well, but I expect them to err on the side of caution.
* I am not concerned about the technicalities of sending such mails (e.g., I would not use the university's email servers).
* I am aware that this paradigm may introduce a selection bias; such is not what I am asking about here.
* I am not pondering just mass e-mailing thousands of people. I would carefully select my audience and send them individualized mails with individualized, specific questions.<issue_comment>username_1: I think it would be perceived as very shady and extremely irritating by all the people you are spamming. People spam legally all the time and it doesn't make anyone feel good about it that it's *legal*.
Don't forget that when you do human subjects research you need ethical approval, so it isn't just the terms and conditions of these websites that matter but also the opinion of your institution's ethics board.
As far as methodological issues, the problem with low response rates in a survey is not just having a small N, but also that when your response rate is low the risk of bias becomes very high.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Apart from varying ethical issues (and human-subject issues: yes, consult your IRB...), from a statistical viewpoint your sample will be biased by self-selection (or not). Also, despite their attempt to universality, "Web of Science" is not the universal repository for all references...
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> **Spam** *(noun)*: 1. irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the internet, typically
> to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing,
> spreading malware, etc.
>
>
>
(source: [Google & Oxford Languages](https://www.google.com/search?q=definition%20of%20spam&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8))
What you would be doing is effectively advertisement of your survey to people who never gave their consent.
**So yes, this is very much spamming.**
And besides the *ethical* issues, there are a ton of **serious *legal* issues**. For one, I'm very sure Web of Science TOS explicitly forbids such a scraping for any purposes\*, and *especially* survey/advertising purposes. For two, I'm pretty sure most legal systems, especially EU for example, would have a *lot* of legal issues with sending en-masse advertisements to emails whose owners never gave consent for this. EU data/privacy protection laws are especially stringent and you could find yourself in huge legal trouble.
So just **don't do it**.
There are accepted, morally and legally safe ways of conducting such surveys. Follow those. Spamming around like this, you will *a)* expose yourself to huge legal liability; *b)* will surely put your e-mail into every spam filter ever; *c)* obtain data with *questionable* methods, which will be a strict base of refusal for any reputable publisher; and last but nonetheless, *d)* piss off literally every single scientist on the world at once.
---
\* Important distinction: *analyzing* the data is not the same as *using* the information in it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Well, in addition to the fine reasons already listed, WoS limits maximum requests per second to 5, and email addresses don't appear to be in the fields supplied.
It's an idea with issues to start, but if you really want to do it, buy an email list.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: The ethical and effective way to do work like this is to work with various journals (or whatever Web of Science is, if you need to work with them specifically) directly, so that the email can come *from them*. It's never going to not be an unsolicited email, but if the email comes from the journal or organization, it will have a better chance of being opened, and can limit contacts to a reasonable number of times and or methods - for example, they could include a link to the survey in certain correspondence that comes already.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm not a full-throated supporter of this idea, and I do think "spam" is a pretty accurate statement of how many recipients would receive it, but I can't help but bristle at the many other harsh, erroneous claims that other answers have made.
1. **You don't need to contact institutional review boards to send people email messages.** Contra username_1's answer, you don't need to obtain institutional approval to send people an email message.
2. **Corresponding authors willingly take an obligation to receive queries about their work.** That's the purpose of having corresponding authors. The idea that well, *corresponding* with these authors is automatically some kind of ethical violation seems suspect to me.
If your survey or message obviously relates to the authors' work, it is less likely to be perceived as "spam". I think this is a tall bar for any mass survey, but I don't think the idea is obviously absurd.
3. **The terms of use seem to say this is OK.** You want to *use* the contact information in the Web of Science data for *individual academic use*. That's explicitly allowed, at least by the excerpt you listed in your question. So in my mind, as long as you invidually are the one who writes the survey and distributes it (n.b. this may be its own technical challenge), it seems like you are explicitly in the clear.
*None of this is to say that your idea is good or worthwhile.* *It will be perceived as spam by many recipients.* *It's probably a scientifically poor way to design a survey that will not result in particularly strong data.* *But it is **not** inappropriate to send corresponding authors email messages , you **don't** need institutional approval to send people emails, and the terms of use you found **do** say that "individual academic" "use" of the data is OK.*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: This is always a tight line to walk along and, as the majority of other answers have clearly stated, there are plenty of reasons why spam is bad. I get a *lot* of spam every day -- from penis enlargement pills (which actually are quite rare for me to read nowadays) to "please publish in this journal" or "speak at this conference" -- which are far more common. They don't usually get read and I never see them unless checking my spam folder.
I would like to briefly posit an example of this sort of research that I think was done well.
I was invited to fill in a survey by a group of social scientists (not my area at all!) by email. They highlighted how they were asking *me* to take part in a survey because I *met specific criteria* that they were looking for -- which they then outlined.
They also outlined the research proposal -- briefly, but effectively -- which was looking at differences in attitudes to publishing over the duration of an academic career, attitudes to rejection, and a distribution of outcomes. Some of these criteria were things like "you appear to be an early-career researcher because your first publication was within x years of the date we collected the data", and they stated briefly what areas the full survey would explore.
The email was fairly long, very detailed, and specifically mentioned that it was part of their ethics approval. I read it and, as an academic, felt like I understood the motivations for their work and therefore I contributed to it (and filled out their survey).
Note that:
* All of your concerns about self-selection and selection biases are not ameliorated by this approach. In particular, it is difficult to distinguish those who read the email and did not participate from those who did not read it.
* The authors of the previous study I took part in highlighted that *they* knew this was a problem, and I was invited as part of a stratified sampling approach.
* At the end of the day, emails like that *are still spamming people*, but I personally was not offended by the time I finished reading the specific, personal reasons why *I* was a useful data-point. They wrote it to their audience.
* The fact that the email *itself* was specifically reviewed as part of an IRB (or equivalent) gave me confidence in its authenticity and that it served a useful purpose.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: >
> How would this kind of research likely be perceived?
>
>
>
Negatively. If I were a recipient I'd be annoyed and refuse to participate - and would consider complaining about you to your advisor or university - depending on how annoying your email is.
>
> I will be approaching my organisation's research ethics contact as well, but I expect them to err on the side of caution.
>
>
>
Hopefully, they don't like getting spam either, so they'll tell you not to do it.
>
> I am not pondering just mass e-mailing thousands of people.
>
>
>
Don't mass-email people who have not expressly indicated they are interested in such emails.
This is not about the academic merit of your work, it's about abusing the possibility of mass-mailing. **Though shalt not mass-mail** except by authorization, or in life-and-death situations. Period. Just don't do it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: At least in Canada, your work would be explicitly considered Spam: <https://fightspam.gc.ca/eic/site/030.nsf/eng/home>
*(that's a government web page)*
Note that that page includes the following:
>
> The legal definition of spam also encompasses:
>
> ...
>
> the harvesting of addresses (collecting and/or using email or other electronic addresses without permission)
>
> ...
>
>
>
Canada's anti-spam legislation includes very large fines.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/08/01
| 2,154
| 9,002
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc and I would like to know how to mentor PhD students:
**Goal:** Make the student as productive as possible so that he can reach his highest potential and provide us as much results as possible.
The student is smart, has no big personality flaws as far as I know. I was told by my boss that he is into gaming and that I have to push him so that he delivers. I do not want to micromanage him, I have heard that doing that is bad. Some say that we have to let the students figure things out on their own. However, when I let the student figure things out on his own, he will get stuck for days on something trivial. When I find out what he has been trying to do, I think
"Why did not you ask me before, you wasted days on this and we could have solved it in a few minutes"
So, there is this potential of the student wasting time but also the fact that they need to do it themselves to learn. Also when I go through his code I find stuff that I do not like, that is not well done. So I want to change every little thing he does, this is again micromanaging. On the other hand I do want things to get done properly and if I am going to change everything he does, then I might do everything myself, because it pretty much takes me the same amount of time. Then I do not know why we would pick a student to help us. However we cannot do this alone, it's too much work and we are supposed to mentor students and produce PhDs, it's even good for my CV to show that I mentored students.
I am not sure how to deal with this, there are many factors at play and I would like to know how people here deal with these problems.
Cheers.<issue_comment>username_1: The title question is certainly too broad for an answer here: books have been written on effective mentorship. Instead, I'll focus on your comments about micromanaging.
>
> I was told by my boss that he is into gaming and that I have to push him so that he delivers.
>
>
>
Set frequent goals. Let's do X by tomorrow and Y by the end of the week. If they meet these goals (or have convincing reasons for what they tried, where they got stuck, and how they tried to get unstuck), then there is no issue. As they come up to speed, they will start setting these goals for themselves and you can step back.
If they are frequently turning up with minimal progress, then you might consider some set working hours (e.g., 1-5 on MWF). This is not meant to be punitive, but helpful -- if they are just down the hall from you, you can check on them often and probably greatly speed things up. If there are other peers they can sit with, so much the better. Once the project starts moving, it becomes fun, and they will likely stay engaged on their own.
>
> However, when I let the student figure things out on his own, he will get stuck for days on something trivial. When I find out what he has been trying to do, I think "Why did not you ask me before, you wasted days on this and we could have solved it in a few minutes"
>
>
>
Beginning students do not know what is trivial, what is tractable, and what is hard. They similarly do not know what already exists versus what they need to do from scratch; so, they may spend far too long reinventing the wheel. Some inefficiency due to this is inevitable.
The solution is frequent, brief check-ins and/or asynchronous chats. Impress upon the student that if they're spending more than a few hours doing something, you should know what it is. That doesn't mean you need to micromanage their time -- if they are reading a paper and implementing it, that could take a week, and all is well and good; schedule a follow-up for a week later. But if in the course of this, they spend more than a couple of hours trying to understand a particular equation, they should ask you about it and get your concurrence before spending additional days trying to figure it out on their own. They'll eventually get a better sense of when to come to you versus when to dig in on their own.
>
> Also when I go through his code I find stuff that I do not like, that is not well done. So I want to change every little thing he does, this is again micromanaging. On the other hand I do want things to get done properly and if I am going to change everything he does, then I might do everything myself, because it pretty much takes me the same amount of time.
>
>
>
Code is tricky for the reasons you mention. I have found a few guidelines.
1. Never debug your student's code.
* If the code doesn't work at all, they should figure it out on their own or with their peers. At most, you can have them explain it to you; this may reveal conceptual problems that you can explain on the whiteboard.
* If the code does work but the results are not reasonable, you can ask for cross-checks. Explain why you are skeptical and suggest some tests that will either make the error apparent or will allay your suspicions.
2. Never edit your student's code.
* In most fields, most code is "private": everyone writes their own. This holds also for your student -- they should be giving you only qualitative outputs like charts, figures, or tables. The code they use to generate these is entirely their own; you never edit it, download it, or (in most cases) even look at it.
* In other fields, some/most code is "shared": the lab has a complex codebase that everyone contributes to. In this case, your student's code will have to meet the group's quality standards -- but again, you should limit yourself to explaining what the problems are. You should be able to articulate the problem, even if it's just stylistic, and they can fix it from there.
3. Give lots of feedback
* Similar to your comments above, students can spend hours writing a simple script that you could have written in minutes. Part of this is experience, but much of this is workflow. Students won't even know what a good workflow is until someone shows them.
* "Research code" has its place, but it would be good if students had at least a vague awareness of higher concepts such as data structures, memory management, scalability, profiling, version control, IDEs, Linux and its native tools, advantages of different languages, etc. It is a real shame when students spend thousands of hours coding but never really get beyond functions and loops.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I am a PhD student who is currently polishing up his thesis for submission. Here is how I think it should have been done.
**Assume that they know nothing about academic work.** You can even tell them that, if you do it in a nice way, they will understand that you are simply take care that they know the basics. Unless their Bachelor/Masters program specificaly teaches how to work in academia, they will have absolutely no idea. At our university only psychology students actually understand the scientific method, and only molecular medicine/biochem students are prepared to work in their respective fields. The rest learns facts and math. What I mean by that specifically is:
* They do not know how a paper is structured and why it is done the way it is in your field. What belongs in the introduction? What belongs in the discussion? Andy why? Etc. Take a good paper, and go through it. Then take a couple of bad ones (maybe student submissions), and make them point out mistakes to them.
* How do you find a research idea? (Relevant only after the first project)
* How do you actually research a question? Some might never have used google scholar, and do not even know that you can look up "cited by". Why should you always try searching for a review? How do you stay up to date in a field? What are the top journals/people to pay attention to?
* What tools are there? They might be obvious to you, but they are not to them. Google Scholar, Connected Papers, Zotero with all Plugins, etc. Whatever you use, show them.
Then, to start them off, give them a clear project, with a clear goal. They have no idea what is relevant in the field, and neither should they. A review of a very narrow field might be a great place to start.
My personal preference: Allow them to send you rough drafts. My prof wanted to see an almost polished version of everything, which meant that I wasted so much time ...
Once they wrote the first paper, they probably should be able to come up with original ideas and be very productive, and you will not need to guide them, but will be instead working as peers.
Make sure they are not afraid to come to you with ideas. If they have a very stupid one, explain why it is not feasible, instead of dismissing it. Never use your taste/experience as a reason to dismiss something without a good explanation. If they are afraid to come to you with ideas, they will not be having fun, and you will not be happy, trust me. This also goes for teaching. If they want to try a new method, either explain why you think it is not feasible, or just let them try it, and maybe crash and burn.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/08/01
| 565
| 2,589
|
<issue_start>username_0: I made a research proposal for a PhD position. I was able to secure a conditional offer from a UK university but did not secure funding as the UK prof did not fund my project. After completing my PhD from another institution in my home country (on a different topic from the UK PhD idea), I have now applied for a postdoc fellowship revising the original PhD proposal which secured me a PhD position in the UK.
I applied for this postdoc fellowship from a different EU university. I want to ask can the UK institution and professor object to choosing another host institution for this postdoc.?<issue_comment>username_1: You are still the owner of your original proposal, which was made without input from your potential UK host institution. Even if there was some discussion that improved the proposal, they were unable to accept your offer, and you are therefore free to pursue it in another context. If your denied Ph.D. proposal reflected a lot of contribution of the UK institution or your potential UK guide, then it would be polite to talk to whoever helped you with the proposal.
Of course, if the UK people did not like the idea, this fact might give you some feedback about the value of your idea.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you can develop your earlier ideas. If others have contributed to them you need to, at least, acknowledge those contributions to avoid any charge of plagiarism. But no one can stop you from developing an idea (patent law aside).
If an idea is "out there" then anyone can work on it. It is only necessary to acknowledge others who contribute. Sufficient contribution earns others the right of authorship, of course.
I think it would be a mistake, for lots of reasons, to hide your future development from others you've worked with in the past. Collaborations are usually valuable to early career researchers. But those discussions haven't given ownership or control over the concept to anyone. If someone would object, it would be improper. If someone would ask to be part of your research it would probably be an advantage all around.
---
And, beyond this proposal, I suggest that you keep a notebook of research ideas that might bear fruit someday, but which you don't have time at the moment to work on. These commonly arise while doing other research. Put separate ideas on separate pages/documents and review them periodically. Some of them might be developed while you seem stuck on your current project. Some might be developed later when you are done and waiting for word from publishers.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/08/01
| 944
| 3,832
|
<issue_start>username_0: Whenever we get a grant funded or papers accepted, I congratulate lab members who worked on the project, yet I normally do not organize dinner or parties.
I respect the decision of others to celebrate and advertise paper/grant achievements with everyone around them, and in whatever way they want. I am more reserved, and I congratulate mentees in the same way, in weekly group meetings. If they want to do something else, I invite them to do so, but I think it is up to them.
Are there guidelines to foster celebrations in labs recommended by academic institutions? I care about maintaining group cohesion and fitting with different personality types e.g. always ask the project leader what they want to do, a cake ceremony for everyone, once a month, etc.<issue_comment>username_1: Many academics, including several known personally to me, are introverted, but celebrating the successes of colleagues, including students, can easily be a comfortable and regular thing.
If you have a gathering room, such as a coffee room, it is a place for such things. The department head can announce a gathering when appropriate and could even provide pastries (or such) for those to be celebrated. It can be quite quiet, actually. Participation need not be mandatory, and can hardly be in a large faculty, but some will want a break in any case and it is a nice excuse.
Your idea to do something similar in a working group is also a good one. People may blush to be mentioned, but it is a happy occurrence to be recognized by peers and mentors.
For those who must be remote, an occasional Zoom gathering to celebrate successes is also possible. Again, the head or administration generally, can organize and invite people. Popping in for five minutes to such a meeting is also appreciated by the honorees and is comfortable enough for everyone.
I've also seen such things done at those periodic "all hands" meetings of a department or school faculty, where some celebration is included along with the business.
For large gatherings someone will need to be responsible for assuring that no-one gets forgotten. That can be a clerical function, though.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: OP's approach is quite similar to what I've met as customary in several groups I've been with or know (in Europe).
* On acceptance of a paper, the corresponding author emails all the coauthors, and possibly further acknowledged group members that the paper has been accepted. Possibly also their PI/director/...
This is answered with a round of well-done! Cheers! emails and that's it.
* Similar congratulations are exchanged by email on grant funding.
* More of a celebration *may* happen if someone wins, say, a poster prize.
That may range from everyone coming along and look through the book that was won over cookies/cake/pizza at the seminar all the way to a BBQ. That is, the one who won the prize would bring the cake to celebrate the occasion with their coworkers on the project\*.
Which also implies (IMHO) that the group/department should make sure such a decision to celebrate is voluntary and not peer-pressure resulting on the proud PhD student who won a 25 € book voucher spending 100 € to feed the whole group.
* For important grants or prizes, the PR guys may want to do something as well, such as a press release, blog post, .... or they'll get an extra mention in a larger department meeting.
---
\*Possibly related: in my home culture, it's the one whose birthday it is who has to bring cake for the whole office.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Typically, the "risk" something could go wrong with a celebration, such as an inappropriate comment, could **outweigh any benefit**. If a celebration is done, it is best to be a voluntary event, and off campus.
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/08/01
| 784
| 3,443
|
<issue_start>username_0: A Ph.D. researcher has a research topic to work on for 3-5 years. He is supposed to produce a dissertation by completing research on his Ph.D. research topic. However, he also produces individual journal publications while working on his original Ph.D. research.
How does he conceptualize those individual research paper topics, and how do those individual research topics relate to the original Ph.D. title/topic?
Also, how does he find time to produce input data and output results for individual papers? Don't those require additional time?<issue_comment>username_1: In fields where this is the norm, though there are others where it is not, the publications along the way are normally closely tied to the dissertation research. Or, they might represent the essence of that research.
In the extreme case, the dissertation is little (or nothing) more that "stapling" together of those publications. Sometimes a summarization is required, but not always.
The publications might be partial results, or "side" results. These papers need to be sufficiently "novel" to stand on their own, but one normally learns a lot of things while doing a dissertation and many of them can be worthy of independent publication.
In some fields work is done in large scientific labs with a lot of collaboration. A student working in such a lab might get quite a few joint publications along the way. This might cover some fields other than the ones described above.
My field was mathematics, where this practice is uncommon, but my dissertation included a number of results (lemmas, say) that supported the main result and the results as a whole supported a complete theory. Had it been the custom in math, I could easily have published a number of those partial results.
One judge of whether a result is worthy of publication is whether it gives insight to others working in the field. The researcher him (or her) self gains those insights along the way and they can be worthy of sharing through publication.
But it isn't (usually) that the publications are independent of the dissertation research. That can happen on occasion, but usually they are tightly interconnected.
Note that the purpose of doing a doctorate and, within it, a dissertation is to teach the student to do research at a professional level. Publication is the ultimate "proof" of that. It also lets the research community as a whole, via the publication blind review process, to take on the job of vetting the research prior to awarding a degree, rather than leaving it to a few faculty members.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In my field, most thesis projects are of the "stapler thesis" variety.
Someone prepares journal papers while doing research, because this is how you share knowledge with the field; doing research without sharing it is more or less useless.
The hope is that once you've done research over the expected duration of a PhD, you "staple" together these papers, add an intro and concluding chapter, and call it a thesis. It may be acceptable for some of those stapled papers to not be quite complete yet in the form they appear in the thesis, and might take more effort to turn into published papers.
In general, though, there's no distinction between "paper work" and "thesis work" in this approach; the thesis is just a broader collection of papers, stitched together with some unifying ideas.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/08/01
| 2,087
| 8,744
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just graduated with my Ph.D. in Physics from a highly reputed (although not top 10) university in the U.S. My dissertation research was in optics and photonics. I am currently looking for jobs and postdocs. My current long term goal is to find a faculty position (if I can manage that in this job market...)
I'm in a bit of a tricky work-life situation right now.
* For a variety of reasons that I won't get into, I wasn't able to start looking for postdoc positions until 2-3 months ago, and given how "random" the timing of academic postdoc openings can be, I likely haven't given myself enough time to get multiple decent options to choose from. Fortunately, it looks like I will very likely get an offer soon from a well reputed group at a top university (located on the east coast of the U.S.)
* However, my partner recently relocated to the Bay Area for a really good term-limited but prestigious job that she landed, and I'm really happy for her. Ideally, I was hoping to find a postdoc position at one of the universities there so I could be with her, but given that I only gave myself 2-3 months for this process, I haven't succeeded in finding anything in that geographical area for now.
As a result, *one option* I'm considering is to take up an industry position for 1-2 years while my partner finishes up her appointment, and I want to look for postdoc positions after that to continue with my original goal of finding a faculty position. Taking this "break" might would allow me enough time to do a more thorough search.
**Here is my question**: Assuming that after 1-2 years in the industry I'd still want to return to academia, would I be considered "less desirable" for postdoc positions at very active research groups than I am now? Or am I better off going with the postdoc position that I'll have (i.e. on the east coast) instead? Of course, I know that this is ultimately a personal decision, but I'm wondering to what degree my academic prospects would be hurt if I "take a break" from it at this stage in my career.
**TL;DR**: Would spending 2 years in the industry right after graduation hurt my chances of landing good postdoc positions later on?
**Additional info**:
* I'm currently 27, soon to be 28, years old, if that matters
* My research is in photonics, and there are a number of good photonics companies in the Bay Area now, so I'm sure I'll get to do good technical (albeit not publishable) work
Thanks in advance for your time!<issue_comment>username_1: It could be a problem, but you have some control over the outcome. If you are doing research in such a position, research that academia might value, it would be a plus.
But you also need to keep in contact with your advisor and any other collaborators you have in academia. If you are forgotten in a couple of years it will be much harder to get good letters. And research oriented contacts are best. And watch out for the fact that most companies doing research are involved in product-oriented studies, which really isn't like academic research.
A potential negative, however, is if you get used to a big salary and make financial commitments that make a return to a more modest lifestyle harder.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your worry will be non-disclosure clauses. Basically, you might not be able to directly leverage your industry experience in the near future especially if you go for a postdoc after leaving industry. You will still learn valuable *techniques* in industry, but will likely not be able to continue any of the projects you worked on with your employer. The NDA may extend for some years after you leave, simply because your employer would not want you to “steal” any of their ideas or projects.
On the other hand, there is an advantage in going from industry direct to academia: your former employer could become a partner and underwrite some of your research or some of your students, and you will understand the more applied side of research (*v.g.* what “delivering a product” really entails). In this scheme, your former employers see you as an academic doing the risky stuff, in part using government grants, and they scoop up the good students who will have worked under someone they know.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: General answer: no.
In fact...
You may pick up skills and knowledge and contacts during those few years that make you even more desirable.
If your industry background can get the lab you are applying to, to be the very first academic facility operating a funkumverdilerisorator, they may just be *ecstatic*.
I have known people who got offered a *full professorship* just because they came with a cool bit of kit. Absolutely true story.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Frankly, no one here can really judge this one as precisely as you can with all your knowledge of this technology, the associated industry and from scanning job opportunities in both that and academia. It seems that you were wise in taking up a research endeavor that has good activity in both industry and academia. Not every physics PhD will be so fortunate.
But your decision to earnestly seek a postdoc job in an East Coast university when your primary desire is to be with this woman could backfire on you if you really get this anticipated offer from them: nobody likes to be led along and researchers like to get their vacancies filled quickly.
I think the real issue here is the reality of a life as an academic couple and all the logistics that this will entail. You can't just treat this as a series of *ad hoc* situations: *you* made the circumstances here and *you* have to plot a viable path through it.
Previous posts have thrown up a lot of insights into this increasingly common scenario and how employing universities manage it. In some cases being part of an academic couple may actually provide you both with an advantage when job seeking in the same area.
But you both have to sit down and plan on this thing - not just talk around and around on it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I think that taking up an industry job will hurt your chances of finding a postdoc position down the line.
I also think that it will *not* hurt your chances of an academic career down the line.
I am not from the US nor have I performed research on the American continent so my view may not reflect all the quirks that the US system specifically has. However, where I have been there is only a relatively limited postdoc window (typically around five years after defence) and once you are past that window you are no longer considered a typical early-stage postdoc researcher. Instead, however, you would now qualify for the next step in the career ladder: junior professorship, tenure track or habilitation.
Of course, you would have to somehow remain connected with academia to be considered for these positions. However, industry experience is valued more. So for every position after postdoc, I think advantages and disadvantages of having worked in industry at least balance each other out if they aren't favourable to the industry side.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Universities sell PhD's. It's the business they are in. In order to sell PhD's, they have to pretend that there are post-doc job opportunities. Post-doc job opportunities are for recent graduates, to add value to PhD programs. If you are several years post-doc, you aren't in that group of job-seekers.
Universities also do research to boost their research standing, allowing them to sell more PhD's. To get a job like that, you have to demonstrate that you are *better* than a recent graduate. Either by having research success, or by having relevant industry experience.
If you take time off after your PhD, you have to spend the time doing something that will make you more attractive as a post-doc.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: After I moved into industry and worked there for a few years, I was never able to get a scientific position again. There are some things in scientific culture I liked, so I wrote a number of applications, also do not minding a lower salary. I am under impression I was actually never considered as a possible candidate.
This is one of these "glass ceiling" things where kind of nothing is standing on the way but there are barriers that cannot be crossed. You will never be explained why and only learn by the experience. The other two similar barriers are that you cannot start the second PhD after you have one and you cannot continue through more that two or three post doctoral positions.
This may be EU specific, but as far as EU is concerned, this is true for all researchers I personally know.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/08/03
| 602
| 2,139
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to cite a quote by Seneca at the start of my economics thesis:
>
> It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare,
>
> it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.
>
>
>
Here is an example [blog entry](https://philosiblog.com/2012/12/08/it-is-not-because-things-are-difficult-that-we-do-not-dare-it-is-because-we-do-not-dare-that-things-are-difficult/) with it: "This quote comes from his Letter to Lucilius, letter 104, section 26, line 5".
However, [on the Wikisource page](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_104) it is translated like this:
>
> Our lack of confidence is not the result of difficulty;
>
> the difficulty comes from our lack of confidence.
>
>
>
I obviously can't cite the blog. The Wikisource has a different translation. I can't cite the original (how would I even do this correctly), because it is probably in ancient Greek, and I can't translate it myself.<issue_comment>username_1: Seneca mainly wrote in Latin. Since you are not working in a field that is even remotely interested in Latin literature, but since this is probably an inspirational quote, you should not include it in the references, but just give the quote and then in parentheses put in the reference.
*It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.* (Seneca, Letter to Lucilius, 104)
If the quote were of importance to the academic merits of your thesis, you would need to give more information in a citation, including the translator, and you would probably have to give the Latin original.
Most of the classic literature is freely available online, using often translations from the earlier half of the last century. If you want to be very classy, you can also find the Latin original.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When you make a citation, my expectation is that I can check the citation. So you give me a translation and the citation should tell me where you found it. Since you don’t quote the original, you don’t need a citation.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/08/03
| 773
| 3,193
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm late into my 5th year of study. The first project I worked under as a graduate student lasted 2 years and I published 1 paper and presented at a handful of conferences. The advisor for this project is my personal/academic advisor (not the chair of my committee, since he is in a different dept). The project I am presently working on, the chair of my PhD committee is heading up (different guy).
My physics department formally requires only 1 publication for graduation.
My first dissertation proposal was on the first project. I rewrote a 2nd proposal entirely based on the 2nd project. Both were approved by the committee.
The two projects are related in that they are MRI related and at high field strength but that's about it as the first project was about human imaging and the second has to do with MR microscopy.
The chair of my committee does not want me to include this first paper in my dissertation at all. Essentially requiring me to write 3 cohesive microscopy papers for the dissertation (1 is almost done atm)
....
My question is: does a dissertation need to be a cohesive story or shouldn't it just represent the many different things I have learned/contributed to in my PhD? I would like to include the first paper I published as a chapter even though it has little in common with the rest of my dissertation. I have heard of this happening to other students and they simply put them into the dissertation as various chapters even though they may not relate.
It seems to me that the two topics are about imaging two different subjects (humans vs plants/cells/mice) but fall under the same umbrella of MRI at ultrahigh field.<issue_comment>username_1: The dissertation needs to be whatever the thesis committee needs it to be. It's rare that anyone besides them will ever read it, so theirs is the only opinion that matters.
You should work with your committee through your advisor to decide on a format for the dissertation.
If you have other work that doesn't fit in their vision for the dissertation, it's far more important and useful to your future career and the rest of the scientific community that it is **published** (for most fields, as a journal article), so I wouldn't worry about it too much as long as you can graduate.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is largely field dependent. Usually a dissertation is on a single topic or a small set of interrelated topics. It might be a single document (typical in math) or it might be a collection of papers (common in health fields IIRC). It is unlikely, but not impossible, to be a set of unrelated papers; papers on unrelated topics.
But it is your advisor who is likely the only one whose opinion is important here. There may also be a committee who must decide (vote) to accept or reject your dissertation. If they don't approve your dissertation then you are unlikely to be given a degree. So, you need to talk to them. Learning this five years in isn't very professional, however, but I'll put that on the advisor, not yourself.
A dissertation is "normally" cohesive in some sense, but that is a judgement call. Work it out with the advisor.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/08/03
| 2,329
| 9,808
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a beginning scholar. I recently published my first article in my field in a very good journal. The peer review went incredibly smoothly with basically no need for revisions (one reviewer gave a particularly glowing review). I even recently got an email from a scholar praising the work.
However...after setting aside the paper for awhile I picked it back up and I have found a handful of errors that escaped my notice. I'm really dissappointed that I didn't catch these when editing. The article is quite long, well over 10,000 words with a plethora of citations. I noticed I made errors in page numbers in about 6 of them -- the pages are mostly off by one. For example 305 is 304 or 27 is 28 etc. in another case, I type something along the lines of "see pages 150-151" and it should be "150-153", etc.
I also noticed a (very) minor factual error and an error in a reference (though the work can still be located easily). Altogether something like 10 mistakes. Obviously none of them affect the arguments or conclusions of the work.
The journal does not do errata, so there is no correction. I've already been thinking about how to change my editing and revision process so this kind of thing does not happen again. I've learned from this and will do better in the future (particulaly in managing sources, triple-checking details, etc). But I am feeling an incredible amount of imposter syndrome and intense anxiety. I feel like the praise I've gotten is unwarranted and that this paper is a complete mess from all of these mistakes.
I guess what I would like to ask is: is this going to be something I have to cary with me for a long time or are most people not going to notice/care? I am currently in a position where I have no one I can ask for advice, so I thought I would try my luck here.
EDIT: I should be more clear about a detail. The incorrect page numbers are on citations in the text. For example "see (<NAME> 2000: 324) for comment on X." When it should be 323 etc.
I found that I had typos of this sort a couple times in the article, and what has worried me was readers deciding to look up the page numbers for the corresponding discussion and finding that that the page numbers were wrong. Particularly if this happens more than once. That's what I meant by several mistakes and the kind of thing that was really bothering me, because I wasn't sure if that was going to influence opinions of the work.<issue_comment>username_1: There is nothing to do and nothing to worry about. Readers can find things if the articles are correct.
Take more care in the future, but we would all be happy to make only minor errors.
Using a local proof reader is a good practice if you can arrange it.
If you have a personal website you can put errata there also.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know about your field (actually, you haven't mentioned it), but I am under the impression that you are really overthinking this.
For instance, many people would probably describe "confusing page numbers 27 and 28" as a typo rather than a genuine mistake.
In general, it is simply impossible to right [edit: I meant "write", of course - but no, this was not on purpose... ;-)] a lengthy text without making any mistakes. Checking everything multiple times can reduce the number of mistakes, but:
* Most likely you won't get the number of mistakes down to 0, no matter how careful and often you proofread everything. (This is just how our human brains work: when you proofread something that you have written, you simply read what should be there, not what is really there. One way to deal with this problem is to put your article away for a week or two before you proofread it; this will help a bit, but it will not solve the problem completely.)
*Personal anecdote:* I'm working in pure maths, and I made it a policy for myself (during my PhD even more than now) to really very, very carefully check everything I publish, first before submission and then again before publication. At some points I was close to annoying my co-authors because I wanted to do one more double-check of a paper. But still, I'm sure that in every single of my papers you will find something which is not completely right. This will most likely not be a serious flaw in an important argument, but in some cases it might indeed still be a small mathematical inaccuracy, which is far higher on the "error scale" than the things you mentioned.
* Beware of the law of diminishing returns! The less errors are left in your paper, the more effort you will need to find one more of them. When you're talking about things like page numbers off by one, you will somewhen reach the point where it's just a waste of time to search for further mistakes and typos.
* You might even reach a point where, when you ge ahead with proofreading, you will probably introduce more errors than you fix - simply because at some points it becomes very difficult to focus on even more proofreading, and you are thus more likely to make mistakes.
>
> The journal does not do errata, so there is no correction.
>
>
>
As I've said, I don't know your field - but in pure maths I have never seen anybody submit an erratum for any "mistake" similar as the ones you described. Please beware that publishing something (like, for instance, an erratum), adds information to a very full scientific communication channel - so make sure that what you publish adds more information than noise. If people have read your paper and see an erratum in a journal, then they will probably expect that there is some serious mistake in the paper. So they will feel obliged to check the erratum to make sure that they are not relying on false information - and if they then find that your "erratum" consists of of few corrected page numbers which were off by 1, they will most likely just be annoyed that you bothered them with the erratum.
(One thing you could consider is to upload a small file on your webpage which you name something like "minor\_corrections.txt" or "minor\_corrections\_and\_typos.pdf" and where you list those points you mentioned. But make sure that the name of the file indicates that there is nothing substantial in it, unless, of course, there *is* something really substantial in it.)
*Concluding remark 1.* Of course, nothing of what I wrote should be interpreted to the end that correctness weren't important or carelessness were alright.
But it's important to properly gauge your expectations of how much correctness you can expect (from yourself and others) and to note that drawing a reasonable line somewhere does not mean to be careless.
*Concluding remark 2.* You just published your first paper, so it is simply natural that you put very much weight right now on everything being as perfect as possible. Thus, small issues are likely to annoy you now, which probably won't bother you much when you will find them in your fourth or tenth paper.
I think this is completely normal for most of us - just make sure that you don't go crazy over it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Just check the page references more carefully next time. That will not be difficult, and it will deal with most of the errors mentioned that would cause any problems for readers.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: It might be a reasonable solution to publish a pdf with the errors corrected on the internet with a comment (if that doesn't violate the publisher's copyright). In physics, you can use arxiv which allows you to add a comment regarding the errors being corrected.
If you happen to have a personal page on the web (which is seemingly a common thing nowadays, given the existence of GitHub pages and things alike) it's likely a good idea to publish a pdf there as well. Google Scholar, for instance, crawls personal pages of researchers searching for the pdfs of articles.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: One thing you can do to help with getting references is use a tool like [JabRef](https://www.jabref.org/) to manage your bibliography.
In particular, you want to make sure that you utilise [DOI lookups](https://dx.doi.org/) (JabRef can do this for you with the clikc of a button) to populate the content of each entry. This way, the contents will be programmatically filled with the data coming directly from the publishers (via the DOI system).
You can then auto-generate your bibliography from the .bibtex database and you never have to worry about this again.
Unfortunately, not everything has a DOI (particularly older papers) but the vast majority of modern papers will.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm bringing this back from the dead...
I ended up taking a bunch of time to make corrections to my article and put the corrections on my personal website (found far more errors than I anticipated).
But!
I just got very positive reviews on a new manuscript and I feel like I will be able to do a much better job with the revisions and proofs. I am now much more conscious of how to proof a paper and keep all of my notes, sources, and other things in order (also actually have access to a library now). So I won't be making the same mistakes again.
I think I've really learned from the previous experience. The previously published paper was my first project in the field. I think the shoddy mistakes (those page errors, citation errors, reference problems, etc.) really reflect that fact. I've now got methods to triple-check my notes and everything else.
Just wanted to send my thanks to people who offered support and advice in the thread. It really did help me when I was feeling down and helped me put things into perspective. If another beginning scholar runs into the same issues, hope that reading this thread helps you out as well.
Upvotes: 1
|