date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2022/08/31
| 632
| 2,856
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a new PhD student, and worked on something with a postdoc during my master's degree, and we will send it for publication in the upcoming few months. Even though the work was done during my master's, I was going to put in my current email address and research group information on the publication. Will my professor / supervisor be notified of this? It's not research that I have worked on here, and is something I probably will not want to work on again, but since we have the results we are going to publish them regardless. I would not mind anyone knowing of course, since it's public information anyhow, but I am just curious as to how this works. This is the first paper I will be submitting.<issue_comment>username_1: No, no one will *officially* notify anyone else, for no better reason than they don't know who they are and have better things to do with their time.
There is no universal database of working group members and there is no incentive for someone at arXiv or at a journal to seek out the possible associates of a submitting author and make judgments about relationships.
However, if you publish (say on arXiv) it is likely that someone will see it. It is possible that someone who sees it will know your PI and will mention the paper to them, perhaps (hopefully) in a congratulatory way. Publishing is, of course, making things public.
I doubt that you are breaking any rules or norms in your group that would make a conversation with your advisor uncomfortable. You could have that conversation. You could also send them a copy of the work more or less simultaneously with your submission. It is one way to build collaborative relationships in (not dysfunctional) working groups.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you include the name of your current research group in the paper, it is recommendable to inform your advisor about this. Some heads of institute may take offence if a publication is associated with the institute without their knowledge. And in some cases, departments receive funding depending on the amount of papers they publish, so they will want to count your publication if it has the department's name.
Your advisor will *normally* not be notified if you submit a paper without including them. However, it happened to me once that I submitted a single-author paper and the editor of the journal asked my advisor if they were aware of that (they were, of course). The editor and my advisor knew each other personally, which may or may not have played a role. In any case, you can never be sure.
And of course, even if your advisor is not notified directly, they may have one of those tickers that periodically sends them an email with "potentially interesting" recent papers. In this case, they may anyway get an email with your name and the title of your paper.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/08/31
| 1,811
| 7,448
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a master's degree in computer science, and have been working as a software developer outside of academia for about a decade. I'm considering trying to transition into academic philosophy with the ambition of having an academic career, as far fetched as this may be. I'm evaluating the following two options:
1. Pursuing a ~1-year MA degree in philosophy first (e.g. at [Birkbeck College](https://www.bbk.ac.uk/study/2022/postgraduate/programmes/TMAPLPON_C/0/philosophy-ma)), followed by a PhD.
2. Trying to apply directly for a PhD (in Europe, which officially means 3-4 years of study) in a somewhat related subfield (philosophy of technology and science).
Option 2 is something that was mentioned to me as a realistic possibility only recently: apparently, people do get directly accepted for philosophy PhDs with e.g. a math background, and no formal philosophy education. However, I'm not sure if skipping a relevant MA could hurt me in some way.
1. **Would it be a faux pass if I, with my lack of formal philosophical background, tried asking individual professors about the possibility of doing a PhD under their mentorship?** I fear that this could earn me a black mark with them and impact my chances for future collaborations (after obtaining an MA). I have a pretty good idea about a topic I would want to work on, and have studied extensively on my own, but I have zero relevant publications. I do have some publications in other scientific disciplines, though.
2. Even if I were accepted to a PhD program directly, **would not having an MA in philosophy worsen my chances when competing for academic posts after having finished my PhD?** My intuition tells me that in most case, not having an MA would be negative (I'm no prodigy and am not going to produce some ultra-extraordinary publication record that would outshine everyone else).<issue_comment>username_1: This really depends on how much accompanying self-learning in philosophy you have already done prior to starting a formal program. Unless you have a substantial amount of self-learning already in philosophy, it seems to me to be premature to do a PhD program, having come from a background in computer science. At a minimum, PhD candidates in philosophy would be expected to have learned undergraduate-level material in metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, aesthetics and political philosophy. If you have already covered those through self-study then you might have the necessary preparation, but if you haven't then you are probably behind the expected level for an incoming PhD candidate. (And if there are any of those terms where you need to look up the meaning, then you don't have the required background yet.)
It is true that there would be some overlap in your computer science background and aspects of the field of logic and foundations of mathematics/computing, but this is only one branch of philosophy, and even there the overlap would be relatively small unless you have already done a substantial amount of self-study going beyond your field.
Unless a university has a policy to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with making preliminary inquiries with academics in the field to get their advice on whether you know enough to enter a PhD program, and if so, whether they would be interested in supervising you in a topic of interest. In order to avoid looking silly, I recommend you begin by making some tentative inquiries to see if the academic in question believes that you have sufficient background for a PhD program, or if you should do an MA program first. If it is the latter, you can still flag your interest in future PhD study under their supervision and then come back to them in a year or two when you're ready for that program. You aren't necessarily expected to have publications on intake to a PhD program, but some applicants will, and this is an aspect of the competition for places (which is another advantage of doing an MA first --- you might get a chance to write some publications before applying to a PhD program).
Unless you can demonstrate having a reasonably well-rounded background in undergraduate-level philosophy through self-study, I doubt that you will be admitted directly to a PhD program in philosophy. In the unlikely event that this were to occur, you would find that there is an early period where you are behind your peers and have to rapidly learn material that they learned as undergraduates. This harms your chances of successful completion of the PhD candidature, but if you were to complete it successfully, it would not worsen your chances of competing successfully for later academic posts.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Not a European philosopher, but....
>
> Would it be a faux pass if I, with my lack of formal philosophical background, tried asking individual professors about the possibility of doing a PhD under their mentorship?
>
>
>
Like most things, it's all about your tone. It is certainly not a faux pas to humbly ask questions when you are well-informed but open about your weaknesses. Though even given this, your response rate may be somewhat low.
>
> Even if I were accepted to a PhD program directly, would not having an MA in philosophy worsen my chances when competing for academic posts after having finished my PhD?
>
>
>
No one cares about your MA (or lack thereof) when you have a PhD. However, skipping this step would likely reduce the amount of interesting things you have published by the time you apply for post-PhD positions. Even if most students in your field don't publish during an MA (not sure), they will likely be able to "hit the ground running" faster than you will be able to.
>
> as far fetched as this may be
>
>
>
You certainly know already how long the odds are (and how low the salary is if you succeed!). I would just ask you this: if you were 100% sure that you would not get a philosophy faculty position, would you still go down this road? Or would you just study philosophy in your spare time as hobby? In the latter case, I would think very carefully before proceeding.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Coming in very late on this and you may have already made a decision but… I recently returned after a 35 year gap to do an MA in Philosophy (Exeter Uni) having graduated in Pholosphy originally. I struggled for about a term before finding my philosophical feet again. One of my colleagues graduated in English two years ago and moved to philosophy. She has struggled more. The primary reason is the mass of basic concepts, schools of thought, philosophical methods etc that are taken ‘as read’ even at MA stage.
A lot of are instilled by debate, lectures and colloquiums with very good philosophers who will knock all your rough edges off and point you in the right direction when you stray down paths that aren’t going to help you. Without this kind of experience, you may struggle.
Take for example the ability to compare different methods such as conceptual analysis, phenomenology, historical epistemology and XPhi. There’s a lot of philosophy to read and understand to get this basic toolkit.
Without the toolkit a PhD would be like trying to make a table with wood but no saw: you might fashion something but it would be hard to sell as a table.
Sorry if this sounds hard but it’s how the PG world tends to work and why it may be difficult.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/01
| 765
| 3,169
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I've recently graduated with a STEM degree, but my advisor still wants us to make a submission to a conference.
Right now I am unemployed and I have no source of income.
What is the best way going about telling my advisor that I would like to be paid?<issue_comment>username_1: This is an exemplary case of academia asking "innocently" for some free work.
Please keep in mind that by asking money, or at least refund of the living expenses you will have, you will be looked like a jerk by the median academic person ("what? this person wants to be paid to do research? how they dare.") while in fact it's the person proposing free work that's the jerk.
Yes, if you do that work you will obtain visbility and it will help to build your resume.
If you want to stay in good terms, ask if they will pay you the travel and accomodation to the conference (hoping they will hold true if they say "yes"). This is not payment for the work you do now, but it is at least a tangible and concrete form of future compensation for the work performed now.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I've been in similar situations, both from your perspective and from the other side, eg. collaborating with people no longer employed in my research group.
The common mindset of people in academia is that they are happy to get publications. Depending on your field, it is also not unheard of for people to *pay* for publications. So I'm pretty sure that the way your previous supervisor sees this is that they are offering you an **opportunity** to get a publication. You didn't state it in the question, but usually when people ask previous collaborators for such things, it is implied that the previous collaborator will have to do minimal work. So in this sense, such an offer is indeed very generous from an academic point of view.
Of course it is up to you how you view the situation. If you think that you would not benefit from the publication personally, then it's completely fine to say no. However I don't think you can expect to be paid, I've never heard of such an arrangement.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It really depends most on Roland's question of what is your career plan. If you don't want to stay in academia, there might be no reason to do this, and you should simply explain. If you want to stay in academia, doing this will likely make it easier for you to find a job, so you should try to find a way to do this that you are happy with.
I would consider saying something along the lines of
"I don't think I will have time to work on this conference submission because I am currently very hard at work looking for jobs."
The idea is to not accuse them of trying to exploit you for free work (as username_2 suggests, there is a good chance they thought they were helping you out by offering you this opportunity, and might be offended by such an accusation) but still let them know about your job situation and connect it to the paper. This assumes that, if they have some opportunity to, e.g. take you on as a temporary postdoc, as <NAME> suggests, you would want to take it and then work on the paper.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/01
| 401
| 1,708
|
<issue_start>username_0: My colleagues and I are trying to publish a paper since July of this year. Unfortunately, we have sent the papers to three journals, but on all three occasions, the response we got from the editor was that the paper "does not fit the journal".
To this end, I have a simple query: Do we need to cite articles from the journal where we are sending our paper? I have looked for an answer elsewhere, but couldn't find anything satisfactory or incontrovertible.<issue_comment>username_1: There is certainly no (written or unwritten) rule which forces you to cite papers of your target journal to get in - expecting this would be highly unethical on the side of the editors. However, if the journal is a good fit for your paper, it is *likely* to have references which are relevant to your work and if you don't find some, then the journal might not fit as well as you think it does (or your literature research might need improvement). I sometimes even take the reverse approach and identify a fitting venue for a paper by looking at where the peers I cited published their work so that the right audience will find it.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **Absolutely Not - That Would be Academically Fraudulant**
Although, if a journal is a good fit for your paper, it will probably have some stuff that you'd want to cite.
Maybe submit your paper to a journal that you're already citing articles from.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: No, but...
One way to show that your article is "a good fit" for a journal is to show that you are responding to, working with, or otherwise engaged with work that has been published previously in that journal.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/01
| 1,678
| 6,915
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have some publications in top NLP (Computer science field) conferences and a few will be published soon. I worked under not fully academic project but results include publication in the same NLP field and as I understand, it should be enough for getting Phd.
PS: NLP - Natural Language Processing
Is it possible to get a PhD in some UK universities (or maybe in some other country) without enrolling into a full PhD program and wasting my time for courses, etc?<issue_comment>username_1: Well, although publications are certainly a requirement for a Ph.D. degree these days, a portfolio of publications does not necessarily lead to a Ph.D. In fact, many MSc. have dozens of publications and still do not hold it. For a Ph.D., your research must reflect your ability to do independent, innovative research, that will eventually take you to a leadership position in a few years. With that being told, your best bet will be the "Ph.D. by publication portfolio". You can do that in the UK. You have to attend for 1 year, tipically, but you can use your existing publications. You don't have your Ph.D. 100% certain, for now. Just work towards it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **SHORT ANSWER:**
No, being a co-author of various articles published in top peer-reviewed conferences or journals is not a **sufficient** condition for "getting a PhD", mostly because coauthorship does not show independence. It might be considered a **necessary** condition in some institutions, which often confuses students in believing it is also a sufficient one.
Being the main author or single author of various such articles might be enough to be allowed to defend a PhD thesis at some institutions, but I suspect that a "defense" would still be required to insure that the author understands the content of their publication, that they have a central thesis in those publications, and understand what a proper research process consists in.
**LONG ANSWER:**
According to Wikipedia, those studying for a [Doctor of Philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy) degree are required to
1. produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge, normally in the form of a dissertation, and
2. defend their work before a panel of other experts in the field.
Developing the first point, a Doctor of Philosophy (someone who "got a PhD" for short) should be able to do their own research independently from others, which implies 1) having a good knowledge of the state of the art in some area, 2) being able to define and choose "good" research hypothesis, 3) knowing how to setup and implement research experiments or work to validate or invalidate such hypothesis, 4) being able to communicate clearly their work to the research community. Merely contributing to such research is enough to earn co-authorship in publications, but does not indicate an ability to fulfill all those roles independently from others. As an example, co-authorship is sometimes given to students who are making a minor (but real) contribution to the article (e.g. implementing and describing in the article a piece of software used in the experiment), but played no active role in some other parts (e.g. choosing the hypothesis, defining the experimental protocol, etc.). Such a student completely deserves authorship (see the [ACM Policy on Authorship](https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/roles-and-responsibilities) for an example), and will learn a lot about performing and describing research, but did not prove their ability to perform all the tasks required from a researcher.
In some institutions, being the **main author** of a number (e.g. two at my institution) of articles in peer reviewed venues might be a **necessary** condition for being allowed to defend one's PhD (not for just "getting a PhD"), but this should not be confused with a **sufficient** condition (which many students do). Note that it would allow to "defend", but not grant the diploma automatically: the PhD candidate would still be required to 1) compile the research from their various publication into a single document, with a central research theme and hypothesis, and to 2) defend it orally in front of a jury in a way convincing them that they have the skills to make an independent and ethical researcher.
I hope it helps!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Many UK universities have "PhD by publication" programs that are designed to award a PhD based on work the applicant has already published rather than based on work the applicant does while at the University. These are usually not well-advertised and many universities restrict them to people who already have some sort of ties to the University in question but I believe there are one or two that are open to outsiders.
These will usually require registration and fees of some sort but the time enrolled and hence the total fees paid will be much lower than with a conventional PhD.
AIUI if accepted for such a programme you will normally be required to write an introduction and conclusion that ties your papers together and then to go through the assesment viva process in the normal way.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is it possible to get a PhD in some UK universities (or maybe in some other country) without enrolling into a full PhD program ...
>
>
>
Yes, it is possible in the UK under the PhD by Publication (retrospective route).
The retrospective route is based on prior publications (published work), unlike the prospective route that allows a Thesis to be written based on Publications during the doctoral tenancy.
In OP's case, the answer is **No** based on
>
> *I have some publications in top NLP (Computer science field) conferences and a few will be published soon*
>
>
>
Most UK universities will not admit to the PhD by Publication (retrospective route) based on ***Conference only output***.
I'll recommend to publish in top NLP/AI journals (at least two) to supplement your top tier conference publications.
---
Below is from [previous posts](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/194269/162770) (You might want to note [this as well](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192099/162770)):
... formalise your 'research' by pursuing your doctorate through the **PhD by Publication** (**retrospective**) route. Though the prospective route is common (or integrated into traditional PhD), the *retrospective* isn't in certain parts of the world. From my (ongoing) research (of 90 UK universities), there are more than 16 universities offering PhD by Publication to all. A large number offer to their staff only or to their staff and alumni, and rest extends to those having close research association with them.
NB: for PhD by Publication, you'll need to show rigour, theme (golden thread) and coherence through a commentary/critical analysis ...
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/01
| 1,260
| 5,236
|
<issue_start>username_0: **EDIT FOR UPDATE**
*I rejected this specific research fellowship.*
*Another lab in the same R&D institute reached out to me soon after I rejected the first one, offering me full funding with living stipend (higher than the average COL in the area). We had a discussion with it, and they are already processing my papers.*
*Thanks, everyone!*
---
I received an offer to do a research fellowship at an EU research institute. The research institute is considered one of the most prominent R&D institute in the field I want to go into.
My concern is that the position itself is unpaid/self-funded. As I am currently not affiliated with any university (gap year), I can not really apply for institutional funding. I will be trying to appeal if I can at least get housing covered by the host institute as I can fund pretty much everything else but the housing, or vice versa, with my dad advising me to request as much compensation the host institute is willing to provide. How should I proceed with this position if they deny my appeal or can not provide me some funding for the position?
Potentially other important information:
1. The funding for the research itself is for four years, but I am opting to only really work with them for a maximum of one year as I do not have enough funds to self-support anything longer than that. I am from a non-EU country.
2. The PIs I would be working with are postdocs. I was referred to their research work by two other separate PIs (senior scientists/group leads) in the same division because their labs are currently full.
3. I was given direct recommendation and referral to this research institute by my current mentor, who is an *[insert professional organisation name]* Fellow. He was a visiting researcher at this institute during his sabbatical and was a visiting professor at a nearby partner university where one of the PIs is also affiliated.
*PS I do not really know which tags to use.*<issue_comment>username_1: Anyone offering a student an unpaid position will be understanding if that student asks for any financial help they can get -- in other words, it will not hurt to ask whether there is anything they can do beyond offering you a salary (say, a housing allowance, etc). The worst that can happen is that they say "no, sorry, there really isn't anything we can do for you", but they're unlikely to retract the offer if you ask nicely.
Now, whether or not you take the job is something we really can't tell you. The best we can do is provide you with a perspective. First, working for someone without being paid clearly sucks, and one could reasonably suggest that hiring someone without paying them is unethical. On the other hand, working for them is also a way for you to (i) learn something valuable for your future, (ii) build a professional network that might be useful, (iii) receive mentoring that can be helpful for your career. If you chose to see things this way, then an unpaid internship is, in essence, an "[opportunity cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost)": It is money you pay in hopes of reaping rewards in the future.
Opportunity costs are all around us. For example, going to college is one (you could be working in industry and make money, but instead you choose to go to college, potentially pay tuition, because you think it is a good investment), playing the lottery (you pay for a lottery ticket in hopes of winning), you pay for a train ticket to a different city to go to a job interview in hopes of getting the job, and so on. Some of these have more certain outcomes than others, but at the core of your dilemma lies the question: "Is it worth paying the opportunity cost given what I think the benefits will likely be". This is a question that I don't think we can answer for you.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Now you do not have an affiliation, but in EU getting an affiliation is rather easy (and almost free). PhD programs aren't always rigid or very structured, what is important to have is a professor willing to be your (formal) advisor.
And it is not unheard of being student at university in country X while working in research institute in country Y (it is not easy, but it is not impossible either).
For example in Germany you may find a professor at the university that accept you as a PhD student (said professor does not need to provide you money or even a working space for you), but once you are accepted you will get the uni affiliation (you will enroll, paying your yearly tuition fees of ~400 € per year).
Be creative, take the position, sign the contract, so you get one working affiliation (the research institution) to use as a leverage with professors (ask your superior at the research institute for contacts, or do cold emailing sparingly from the research institution email) to be accepted as a PhD student *somewhere*. At the same time, do not compromise yourself financially, so do not embark in moving or renting a flat in the location of the research institution.
Maybe get to the place for the starting date, sign the papers and all the bureaucracy of the first 1 month and then go back home to work remotely ...
Good luck!
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/01
| 1,249
| 4,437
|
<issue_start>username_0: While reading the paper of some authors. I have decided to work on a question which they listed as an open question in the conclusion section. I'm hesitating on whether or not to cite the paper, from which I got the question, because usually we cite papers providing answers rather than papers stating questions.
Is is unethical to work on the question on my own paper without giving proper reference to the paper I got the research question from? if so, how should I cite the paper?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, I think you should. Questions are at least as difficult to develop as answers, I would not privilege one over the other.
You need not cite it as explicitly as "We got our research question from (Andy, et al. 2022)", though.
Rather, typically in the introduction of a paper you want to set up what current knowledge in the field is and what issue the paper at hand is addressing and *why that is important*. One of the most straightforward ways to make a case that the problem you are addressing is important is to say that someone else also thought the problem was important! Or at least, important enough to mention in their own paper as an open question. You can cite this motivating paper as you make your case.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you should absolutely cite the paper. In addition to the reasons explained in username_1's anwer, here is another important reason:
People who read the open question in the paper might want to know whether the question has been solved meanwhile. The first thing they'll probably do to find out is to check where the paper was cited.
So by citing you will help those who are (or would be) interested in your work to actually find your work.
By the way, I really don't see any reason at all not to cite the paper. There's simply no disadvantage in citing it.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Citing a paper that inspired your research is *extremely* common; refer to it the way you would any other background information that situates your work.
Some examples from a quick search of the arXiv (quotes are taken from the final published versions):
* *Arch. Math. Logic* 43 (2004) pp. 583-663:
>
> In this realm we may classify forcing notions using the methods of [23], [24] and, for example, declare that very Souslin (or generally ω–nw–nep) ccc forcing notions (see 1.3.1) are really nice. Both the Cohen forcing notion and the random forcing
> notion and their FS iterations (and nice subforcings) are all ccc ω—nw—nep, and [22, Problem 4.24] asked if we have more examples. It occurs that our method relatively easily results in very Souslin ccc forcing notions (see 1.3.4(3), 1.5.8(2), 1.5.11, 1.5.15(3))
>
>
> …
>
>
> [22] <NAME>.: On what I do not understand (and have something to say). *Fundamenta Math.* 166, 1—82 (2000) math.LO/9906113
>
>
>
* *SIAM J. Discrete Math* 16:1 (2003), pp. 99–113
>
> In particular, we answer the question of
> Erdős et al. [8, Problem B], who asked for the asymptotics of r̂(Ks,n, Ks,n).
>
>
> …
>
>
> [8] <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, and <NAME>, *The size Ramsey number*, Period. Math. Hungar., 9 (1978), pp. 145–161.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Usually it is difficult to proof that your research is relevant. You get a witness for free!
Further, it gives credit to the author which is justified.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: The other answers have pointed out that the answer is yes, you should absolutely cite the paper you got your questions from.
I just want to emphasize how narrow a view
>
> because usually we cite papers providing answers rather than papers stating questions.
>
>
>
is.
Providing answers is *a* reason to cite a paper, but far from the only reason. Citations are not a precious resource only to be used when absolutely necessary. It costs you nothing, and helps your reader, to cite papers “merely” because they provide relevant context for your result.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I believe that you should cite the paper. One fundamental reason is that context is hugely important in conducting research and framing it properly for the purpose of publication. Here you seem to have gained a lot of the perspective you need in order to ask the main question for your paper from the paper you are referring to. As such, I think it warrants a citation.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/01
| 1,196
| 5,065
|
<issue_start>username_0: I saw similar questions but not exactly the same as my situation. I have three papers prepared during my Ph.D., one is published already, and the other two are just manuscripts that have not been submitted yet. If I copy and paste the contents from my papers to my thesis:
1. For the one published, will my thesis be considered plagiarism？
2. For the ones that have not been published, will those be considered plagiarism by the publisher when I submit them in the future because the same content has shown up in my thesis?
Many Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: I'll try to summarize some of the issues.
First, there is the concept of the stapled thesis that is common in some fields/places. The thesis consists of a set of published papers (*published*) and, perhaps some unifying commentary. The thesis itself is (largely) just a collection.
Publishers usually require that you give them copyright to things of yours that they publish, and will give you back a license for some (but not all) uses. That license, these days, will almost always give you rights to include the work in a "stapled" thesis (I don't know of exceptions, actually, but must admit the possibility). Generally, though, a stapled thesis probably isn't considered by the publisher to be a "republication" of the already published work.
Somewhat orthogonal to that is the notion of self plagiarism. This is a form that has only some of the characteristics of (ordinary) plagiarism, though without misattribution of the person who originated the ideas. Self plagiarism is considered a violation because if you, for example, copy-paste your own earlier work without citation, you break the chain of evidence for discoveries. The early work contains context that a researcher wants to see along with the current work. You avoid self plagiarism by quoting and citing the early work, permitting that chain of context to be followed.
A third issue you raise opens the problem that if you put unpublished work in a thesis (your unpublished manuscripts) and *if that is considered publishing* then some publishers won't accept it. That is becoming somewhat less of a problem these days with preprint servers (and is not much of a problem at all in some fields that welcome preprints), but you need to be sensitive to that. But, if you have unpublished work, you can do what you like with it, copy-paste, whatever. It just might limit what you can do afterwards.
Generally speaking it is better (and a better habit) to keep things clean. If you copy, do so judiciously and with citation. Make sure that your license (from published work) permits what you want to do. Ask if you aren't sure. If you cite, you avoid hints of plagiarism.
If you want to write a non-stapled type of thesis using early work the best path is to treat the work as you would the work of anyone else. Quote from it, but not too extensively, just as you would from the work of others, and cite what you use. Then, if the thesis contains new results and extensions to old results, it might just be publishable as a new work. I'll also note that the license from a publisher will probably give you rights to copy somewhat more extensively than you could from other works, but likely not unlimited copying.
A major issue for you, however, is what your university expects in a thesis. If they accept a stapled thesis, you are fine. Write up the "bridge/summary" commentary if needed and staple it together. If they accept a new summary of old work, you are probably fine, but keep it clean - quote and cite. But if they expect an entirely new work (unlikely under the circumstances) then you need to provide that.
It would, however, seem odd to me if the university permitted unlimited copy-paste without quote or citation. That is just poor scholarship.
I hope this is enough commentary to guide you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know where you study, but it is not a problem at all in the US. My doctoral dissertation is just a simple and straight combination of my published and unpublished journal manuscripts, and it is totally not a problem at all for me.
If you go and check journal publishers' policy about reusing your own manuscript as part of your dissertation (such as Elsevier), you will find most of these journal publishers don't have any problem if you use your own published first-author manuscript as part of your dissertation. Some publishers may require you to get copyright permission, and some publishers may just want you to make a simple acknowledgment. But you need to follow journal publishing companies' policies and your institution's policy.
I quote Elsevier's policy regarding your question here: "Can I include/use my article in my thesis/dissertation? Yes. Authors can include their articles in full or in part in a thesis or dissertation for non-commercial purposes." Weblink is here: <https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/copyright/permissions>
So please check your institution's policy and journal publishing company's policy.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/02
| 1,125
| 5,294
|
<issue_start>username_0: We published a paper last year when I was a student. I submitted this paper’s abstract to a conference this year after I graduated and I did not ask my coauthors about this. Now this abstract get accept and will be presented at the conference. One of the coauthor who is my previous supervisor sent an email to me saying this is ethical problems that I should not present without her permission. She looks very mad. I wonder if she is true that I need all co authors permission to present our published paper at conference. I planned to cite our paper and mentioned this is a teamwork when presenting at the conference. What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: In my view, there are at least two distinct categories of conferences, though they may not be explicitly labeled as such and I'm sure there are examples that fall somewhere in the middle.
The first type are those where people gather from all over (though the geographical extent can vary) to present and learn about new work to their field (however broadly/narrowly defined). These are often regularly scheduled affairs (e.g., annually), may require that content presented be fully original (though in my field the expectation is that it is *not published at submission*, not necessarily that it is not published by *presentation*), and typically have some sort of review process (ranging from a basic check "yes this is science", to a full detailed peer-review).
For that type of conference, you **submit work with coauthors**, so you need permission from all coauthors to submit and present. Just like for papers submitted to journals, it's considered rude or outright unethical to submit to multiple conferences like this.
The second type of conference is usually more local, and more often consists of a collection of invited presenters. They are likely to be ad hoc, or have shifting topics. The attendees may be almost all people who live/study nearby, though speakers may come from further away.
For this type of conference, **people present as individuals** and *credit* their coauthors (and cite their own published work and work of others) throughout their talk. The presentations are really no different from other types of invited talks (including interview talks), the only thing that makes anything different is that they are grouped together. Sometimes these talks (just like other invited talks) have original content or in-progress work - I would get permission before using anything that hasn't been shown before - but otherwise they are expected to be on things already presented elsewhere. If all the figures, concepts, etc. presented are already published, then in principle there is nothing that would even prevent *someone else* from giving a talk about your work, so there's no need to get explicit permission. Implicit permission is already granted by having the work published.
I'm not certain which category you fall into. Your coauthor seems to think it's the first type, as does your submission method: you sent in an abstract for approval, and it was accepted. If you had other people listed as coauthors on that abstract, you need their permission to submit. On the other hand, it seems like this is work that's already published. If the conference expected work to be novel, then you've possibly also broken the submission rules (even if it was accepted, it's possible they didn't realize it was published if you didn't say so).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In life sciences, chemistry, biology and related fields you publish and peer review papers in journals, you don't publish in conferences. Giving a talk about a published paper or displaying a poster about it at a conference would not require asking permission from any of your coauthors. The work is already published, the author list is fixed and the authors are acknowledged in your talk or your poster.
For unpublished work you should make sure everyone is on board with your general strategy around how much you want to present to the outside before it is published. That doesn't necessarily mean asking for permission from everyone every time you show parts of it at a conference, but your collaborators should know and agree with the choice to show this material in general.
In these fields it would usually be assumed that e.g. PhD students show part of the work in progress in posters at conferences they attend. If there are specific concerns about sensitive information, e.g. if you plan to patent something or if there is the perception of a high chance of getting scooped, you have to be more careful about what you want to show. But apart from that the general expectation is that scientist will show their work in progress at conferences.
There are obviously very large difference between fields here, this answer does not apply to any field where conferences are a way of publishing your results and an alternative or replacement for journals.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If a result has been published, everyone can present it at a conference as long as the authorship is clearly communicated. In fact, researchers should present works of others in their own talk just to show that the topic is of general interest, and to indicate what progress has been made.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/02
| 1,462
| 6,089
|
<issue_start>username_0: Professors looking for PhD students will often have several ongoing research thrusts that students can work on. These may correspond to different three- or five-year grant awards, for example, or they may be different directions within the same grant.
In my cursory experience, watching various labs progress over a few years, I have found that some of these thrusts are very successful, resulting in high-quality publications, interest from the community, star students, and so on; whereas some (say, one out of every three thrusts) will fail, leaving the students who worked on that thrust discouraged and stagnant, and in many cases leading to them leaving the program, switching advisors, or (in the best case) switching to a different project.
My question is: **as a prospective student, choosing a research project, are there any reliable warning signs or red flags to watch out for?** What makes a project risky or safe?
There are many other factors to doing a successful PhD, in particular having a supportive advisor and a healthy department culture (see e.g. [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44953/warning-signs-that-candidates-should-be-aware-of-during-an-academic-job-interv)). I'm not asking about those aspects, but rather the chance of research success of the project itself. [This](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/47137/how-does-a-professor-know-when-a-research-project-will-get-expected-results) and [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95803/how-can-one-find-a-promising-research-project-that-doesnt-just-fall-apart) are related questions.<issue_comment>username_1: First of all, there is no such thing as a completely safe research project, at least one that is worthy to award a PhD for. The only way to know whether a research plan works is to perform it. This is simply because research by its nature explores the unknown – if we already knew the outcome of some piece of research, we wouldn’t have to do it anymore.
That being said, there are more and less risky projects (and also more and less risky fields).
Usually, the more risky projects come with a higher reward if successful, while there is less or no reward for an unsuccessful project, even if done as diligently as possible.
This is partially a problem of the scientific community not rewarding negative results as much as it should (see [publication bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias)), but also partially due to a PhD signifying that you can complete a research project, which you simply don’t learn by exploring a hundred dead ends.
Mind that another risk lies in how exciting the field finds your results and you won’t usually know that either before you tried to publish the research.
Some projects are obviously risky, e.g., consider a project with the following outline:
>
> We have a great new idea how to measure *X.* We will try to implement this idea. If successful, we will investigate its performance and see whether it allows us to measure *X* better than established methods.
>
>
>
This project is obviously somewhat risky, because the new idea could spectacularly fail or perform badly because of something nobody has thought of yet.
However, **most risks are only apparent to somebody with experience in the field**.
Taking the above example again:
How would you know whether implementing the idea involves a lot of fiddling, finding the right components, or not?
Or whether nobody gives a damn about measuring *X* more accurately, but only more quickly or cheaply?
Or whether if you are in a field which does not appreciate methods unless you find something new and exciting with it?
Now, if you are looking for a PhD position, you are likely not very experienced in the field yet.
Thus, most of the times you have to rely on somebody else’s judgement, usually that of the prospective professor.
And of course the professor can be overly optimistic, dishonest, or completely oblivious to the above (because none of the projects that made their career failed and they never had to think about this).
So what can you do about this?
* Look at the professor’s statistics of supervisee success and PhD duration. For an extreme example, if supervisees are either very successful or not at all, you clearly have somebody taking risks.
* Ask senior or former members of the professor’s group: They should have an idea about how much risk their professor is entering and how aware and upfront they are about this.
* Ask the professor. If they can only give a one-line answer on the risk level or contingency plans or are offended by the question, this is fishy. Mind that many funding organisations ask for a risk assessment or contingency plans nowadays, so if the position is third-party-funded, there is a good chance that they already had to thoroughly think about this. (Unfortunately, this can also mean that the professor has already trained how to sell a project as less risky than it actually is.) Mind that a good answer can also be something like: “If the project fails, we should know quickly. In this case, alternatives are available.”
* In general, a third-party-funded project is safer because this usually means some peer reviewers in the field already assessed the risk. But mind that the assessment could also be ”very risky, but somebody should try it”. Also beware whether it was really your project that was assessed, not some larger scheme that includes your project. Ideally, you can get the grant application and evaluation up front.
Finally, I wish to clarify that there is nothing wrong about taking certain risks.
As elaborated above, some are inevitable to research.
However, I think everybody involved should know the risks they are entering.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If your research project has a predictable outcome, it is not good research. Research projects should not be without a chance of failure.
Choose something that
* Is plausibly important if it has the desired outcome.
* Will allow you to try something else afterwards.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/03
| 562
| 2,340
|
<issue_start>username_0: I review a grant application. One of the applicants, Author B, has published an article in a high impact journal as joint first author with Author A (Author A is not in the grant application). In the journal, the published order of authors is
**Author A°, Author B°**, ... (here, the "°" illustrate the joint first authorship)
However in the grant application, Author B refers to the same publication as:
**Author B°, Author A°**, ...
Author B put themself in the first position while citing their own published article (both in the body of the text and the reference section - the inversion is therefore not a typo).
Is it common practice to reverse the order of authors in a citation in such context? I asked this question to a few colleagues and they say that it is not unfamiliar to read this. Some are surprised though, but some understand - a very light academic misconduct that is acceptable.
The situation is embarrassing as I am quite surprised of the order inversion. I wonder if I need to report it to the grant committee (a national research body). If I report it and the misconduct is finally not seen as I see it, I would have impaired the application on a false reason.<issue_comment>username_1: I can't answer whether it's "common practice" but it's hard to see how this would be misconduct.
Both versions are telling us the same facts, that A and B are joint first author. The effect of the change is not to mislead about authorship, but to emphasise and clarify the part of that information that's most relevant for the review - not very different to bolding or highlighting something in order to draw the reader's attention.
If I were in B's position, I might be concerned that "Author A°, Author B°" could be misunderstood by a reviewer who is unfamiliar with the ° convention, or indeed one reading late at night without their glasses on.
It's hard to see what harm is done here. It might be slightly irregular but if that irregularity makes the relevant information clearer, and does not give a misleading impression on anything of substance, that irregularity seems excusable.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don’t think it rises to the level of a reportable offense, but I certainly don’t think it’s appropriate to change the canonical citation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/03
| 611
| 2,673
|
<issue_start>username_0: Silly question, but I figured I'd ask. What information should be present in the opening slide of my presentation to a conference and how do I format it? Should it be like this:
Interesting picture
Title
Name of presenter
MA Student, Department, University
Logo of Department/University<issue_comment>username_1: If there is a presentation template of your university, I would follow it. It is often desirable to present a uniform "corporate design" to the public. If there is not, you can check whether the conference provides a template and use that as a reference.
Otherwise, I would use the information on publications as a guideline:
* Title
* Author(s): Presenter can be highlighted if there are multiple authors.
* Afiiliation: position/job description, department and university.
* Name and place of conference
* Date of the presentation
About the graphical design:
* An interesting picture that fits the content of the presentation is always nice, of course.
* Logo of the university and department (if available)
* Logos of other involved project partners / of the research project
Note: For funded research projects, it is often also intended that the logo and funding code of the funder are present. However, if there are no clear guidelines for this, this information can also go on the last slide of the presentation. I would also include contact information there.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The content of a talk depends very strongly on the audience and the effect you want to produce.
Once I gave a talk on fundamental methods (as in, introductory methods, almost at a remedial level) for producing high quality source code in computer programming. Things like variable names and using white space to improve readability and such. Real basic stuff, leading up to the basics of code arrangement, routine style, etc. All very basic stuff that I noticed people did very poorly when I did code review.
My first slide was a picture of a beach in the tropics. My opening few lines of my talk was about the surfing guru who accepted a student. The first thing the student was required to do was swim the reef. He had to go snorkeling and find out where the water was deep and shallow, how the level changed, and where the jagged coral was that would rip you apart if you fell on it. That is, the underlying fundamentals. And today we would "swim the reef" of computer programming.
Maybe you don't want exactly that. But you do want to select an opening slide that matches the goals of your talk, judged according to audience, the venue, and the general nature of the conference.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/03
| 525
| 2,090
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Professor at a college in the US where we wear regalia to the student graduations. I have a PhD, but am about to complete another doctoral degree from a different university, neither of which are where I teach. Do I have to choose one gown to wear to graduation or is there a specific way to represent both degrees? I have yet to find any guidance on this!<issue_comment>username_1: As no one who matters will actually know which degrees you hold and what gown goes with which, the choice of gown will be yours! If you own both, choose the one that is the most distinctive, colourful, or photogenic.
That is what your graduands and their families would want for their photographs.
(If you only own one, then the choice has already been made for you.)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you can wear whichever you choose, but the intercollegate rules laid down in the late 19th century suggested (but did not require) that you should wear the regalia of your most recent terminal degree.
On the other hand, I suppose you should probably wait until you earn your second degree before wearing it as part of your current faculty function. If you choose otherwise, as a degree-in-progess individual, your tassel would be worn on the right since you have not graduated yet.
I imagine you'd want to wear the gown of your degree granting institution at your own commencement as a student, and I'd check with your professors before doing otherwise.
The most important point is that you should not attempt to blend both styles into a uniform resembling a clown costume. For example, if you have earned hoods of two different colors, you should pick one color and its associated regalia and not attempt to include the other.
<http://intercollegiate-registry.org/revised-intercollegiate-code/>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: @username_2's answer seems good for the US. Here in England-and-Wales, there are no intercollegiate rules and it would be a question for the internal regulations of the university hosting the graduation ceremony.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/03
| 883
| 3,914
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I am the *only* instructor for the **Algorithms and data structures** course in my institute. Before the start of the course, say during the first lecture, I provide the students with the textbooks to be referred to. The course does not have any lab. It is a theory course.
Most of the students who enrolled in my course refer to those textbooks and get clarifications for their uncertainties and also get solutions for problems from the standard textbooks I suggested, during the tutorial sessions. I am comfortable with this.
But, there are some students who use to participate actively in coding competitions and hence tend to ask questions from those sites. For example, If I complete a lecture on stacks, they visit sites such as [gfg](https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/stack-data-structure/), HackerEarth, CodeChef, etc., and ask for algorithms for their complex queries. *I am unsure about how to handle those questions during the tutorial sessions.* It seems like an extra burden to me as those students can push the limits of tutorial sessions from reference books to advanced queries.
I saw some professors not entertaining those queries by saying "do it yourself". While some others try to use their teaching assistants for such queries without themselves involved. I can't agree with the latter as the teaching assistants also find it difficult.
I want to know how to handle such queries that try to push the organized course structure to a broader one.<issue_comment>username_1: I agree that pushing it off to TAs isn't the solution. Letting them work it out themselves is probably fine if the course is sufficiently rigorous that the good students (also) get a challenge.
But, an option you might consider is to have them form a formal study group to work together on things. Be open to questions from the group *after* they have made good attempts on hard problems. One way to do that is to schedule a half hour or so, say per week, to work with them, give them context and answer questions. This might be part of normal office hours, perhaps. This assumes reasonable scale, of course. But it also decouples such questions from class time.
A virtual group might even work. Zoom with them on occasion. Invite others, perhaps.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Be clear :** If you think answering those questions isn't part of your job , then include a line e.g.
>
> Please don't send us questions that aren't course work or topics discussed in lecture .
>
>
>
in the course syllabus . So everything is clear , otherwise you may embarrass and discourage students when you reject them individually later .
**Q&A platforms :** Redirect them to StackOverflow , or set up your platform e.g. with [piazza](https://piazza.com/) where students discuss among themselves , you could join their discussion whenever you like .
**Charge them extra $ :** Read university policy and your contract first , maybe also consult your department chair . Then you may give them your private email and hint that you also happen to be a private tutor ...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you should ask yourself whether answering such questions would be beneficial for some of the other students in the class apart from the one who asked it.
If this is the case then working on these kind of questions is useful for your class. Presumably this will involve situations that are more like real life applications of the algorithms and less like text book examples which gives some new perspectives and insights.
If on the other hand you think this question only interests the student who asked it this already gives you a reason to not answer this in class. If the students are really into it and you are willing to spend some extra time you could organize a separate side project for this but this would be distinct from the course you are teaching.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/04
| 523
| 2,220
|
<issue_start>username_0: Usually Postdoctoral Fellows do not have the Intellectual Property (IP) for the data they collect during their positions. When a Postdoc finishes their role, research institutions can potentially use their collected data for funding or publish it. In some cases, Ive seen manuscripts prevented from submission, and then 'reangled' by the PI with the PI then put as first-author, which is arguably unethical although probably legal.
Given a Postdoc is still actively working on the data after completion of their Postdoc position, at which point should they forfeit their 'rights' to be first-author, if ever?<issue_comment>username_1: Academic codes of ethics generally have a lot to say about who must or must not be listed as an author, but very little to say about which order the authors should be listed in. As such, there's not really a "right" to be first author - it's a question of the conventions of the field and of the particular research team.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In brief, whether the PDRA is still employed at a university or not, does matter not one iota. They maintain whatever rights they had indefinitely.
When discussing IP, what matter to most universities is patenting, and attribution of the work to their university. Universities only care about publication with respect to those factors.
The PI probably does not have the right to prevent the PDRA publishing their work, unless the PI has truly qualified as an author in their own right. A financial or an administrative relationship does not confer any authorship rights. To have qualified as an author, the PI must have made a genuine and significant intellectual contribution to the manuscript beyond "supervision."
Since the PDRA certainly did make a significant intellectual contribution, they have a veto over any submission. They have this in perpetuity. The PI has no right to seize a PDRA's work and repackage it, unless the PDRA consents to it.
If the PI submits a repackaged manuscript without the consent of the PDRA, they have committed fraud. They had to sign that the PDRA agreed to the submission, and if they did so fraudulently, that is indeed fraud.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/04
| 767
| 2,988
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wrote a paper in which I mentioned all citations for definitions that are not mine, and did not cite my previous paper's definition or my supervisor's previous papers as both of us are authors.
My supervisor got really angry on me for this. Did I deserve it?<issue_comment>username_1: It appears that you mistakenly assume that citations are only about avoiding plagiarism.
However, the main purpose of citations is to document the provenance of ideas, evidence, etc.
If done properly, this automatically wards you against any accusation of plagiarism, but that is only a side effect.
In most papers, you can leave out a considerable portion of citations without introducing any plagiarism (it would still not be a good idea though).
If you treat citations as documenting provenance, it is clear that it shouldn’t matter who authored the work you cite: Ideally, you cite your own work if and only if you would also cite it if authored by somebody else.
Typically, authors tend to overdo self-citations, but you can also underdo them.
Usually this is just bad citing, but at worst it can also be regarded as self-plagiarism, i.e., selling your own old work as new work.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you do need to cite your own past work. Not doing so is considered to be self-plagiarism. While ethically self-plagiarism might not be as bad as plagiarizing someone’s else work, it is still not okay.
Self-plagiarism misleads the reader as it presents previously published work as new and original. Academic readers expect that all uncited material is either common knowledge or a novel idea. By not citing your previous work, you are undermining the integrity of academia.
Next, self-plagiarism is bad because publishers (including academic ones) sometimes have a copyright on your previously published work. While you are still an author you are no longer allowed to use the previous work willy-nilly. However, this also depends on what copyright agreement you have and nature of the self-plagiarism (e.g. paraphrasing old work would not violate it).
Lastly there is no reason not to cite yourself. Self-citations still improve your citation count. You should not do it unnecessarily, because overly self-citing is also frown upon, e.g., even when the previous work is not much relevant. However, when there is a legitimate reason to self-cite, there is no reason not to do it.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Your choice to cite a paper should not depend on who wrote the paper. It does not matter if you wrote it, your supervisor wrote it, or a [nazi](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/84829/how-does-it-affect-the-treatment-of-a-mathematicians-results-if-that-mathemati) wrote it. Cite all sources you use. Where feasible, cite other relevant sources.
Do not cite your own work if it's not relevant.
I cannot think of any situation where it would be appropriate to be angry about citations.
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/09/04
| 934
| 3,568
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the actual goal of citing the "access date/time" of when you access a URL? For [example](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalcolithic&oldid=1099494107):
>
> <NAME> (July 17, 2010). "Serbian site may have hosted first copper makers". ScienceNews. Retrieved 22 April 2017.
>
>
>
Or sometimes thanks to `web.archive.org`, you get some that archive the URL:
>
> <NAME>.; et al., eds. (2012). Is There a British Chalcolithic?: People, Place and Polity in the later Third Millennium (summary). Oxbow. ISBN 9781842174968. Archived from the original on 2016-10-05. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
>
>
>
If URLs can change willy-nilly, what is the point of referencing the access date? The URL could become dead at which point the source/citation seems useless, or the content could be changed and the original content at the retrieval date can no longer be found. So I don't understand why this practice is in place, and yet I don't have a better alternative.<issue_comment>username_1: You cite with a date for your own veracity. At the time the citation is made it is (almost always) checkable. The page may change or disappear, as you note, but it existed in the form you claim it did on the date you claim - or so you claim.
Without the date, nothing is really checkable. So, you are making a claim of honesty about what you say and giving proper attribution.
And, we do the best we can with the tools we have. The internet archive provides an improvement over a situation where *sources* can change without comment or ability to verify. Not a perfect world, but it is the one we live in.
Note that when you cite a book, you cite the specific edition. And when an archive captures various versions of a web page the date points (hopefully) to the version you accessed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The point of referencing the access date is *because* URLs can change willy-nilly. It's true that it might be hard for a reader to access the specific version of the website you're citing if the website has since been updated or deleted. But at least it gives the reader some idea of what's going on if, for example, the reader finds that the information you cited has been changed or is missing.
Incidentally, this is why you should try to avoid citing websites which are liable to change in the first place, if you can avoid it. Instead, aim for sources with greater permanence. Ideally published, but at least archived with a permanent identifier, DOI, etc. If you really can't avoid citing a website, and the website later dies without any kind of archived version, then that's unfortunate but there's not much you can do.
Note that in your second example, you're actually citing a published book. In that case, you just need to cite the book itself, not the particular website you might have used to access it or the date you did so (the book is already in a fixed, published form, it's not going to change based on the date you access it). As long as a reader has sufficient information to find the same version of the book (including e.g. the particular edition number you used, if applicable) then that's sufficient.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: URLs change or stop working, and the contents of webpages also change.
The date enables readers to view the exact version of the page that you viewed, even if the page was subsequently changed and even if the URL no longer works - at least, it enables them to do this if the page is archived on archive.org.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/05
| 910
| 3,884
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have my whole PhD thesis split into two papers to be submitted to the same journal at the same time, and each of them needs to be cited by the other (circular citations). I can publish the first paper to arXiv and get the DOI and cite it in the second paper. But I also want the first paper to cite the second paper. But in order to cite the second paper in the first paper, the second paper needs to be published first, which then becomes the first paper and the same problem arises. I am thinking of this possibility of publishing the first paper in arXiv and get its DOI and then cite it in the second paper and upload the second paper to arXiv and then get its DOI and edit the first paper by adding the DOI of the second paper. But is it fine to do so? I am wondering if the journals would accept each paper citing the other in this way. Also, are there any other better ways having each paper citing the other?<issue_comment>username_1: **Ask the journal.** If the journal has an editor, ask the editor. You are not trying to circumvent the review process. You are not asking about your specific paper at this stage - this is a structural question about submissions.
Remember that the papers you submit will *certainly* not be published in their present form. There are always edits, refinements and so on. So it *should* be OK, in the form you are submitting in now, to say “Jacob (2022b) “My second paper”, submitted to…”.
* If your papers are rejected, then you don’t need to worry about the format of the references they contain.
* If your papers are accepted, the editor will tell you what to do about the references.
* If one is accepted and the other is rejected, you and the editor between you can work out what to do about the references from the accepted one to the rejected one. Perhaps they can be omitted altogether.
**Read the journal.** Has it published interdependent papers before? If so, how did the references work? If not - you need to come up, at submission time, with a good argument as to why they should use this format for the first time.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/188429/17254), but wanted to add some thoughts. Now, I don't know the conventions in robotics, but I've been part of physics papers where we did exactly what you describe, i.e. updated arXiv preprints to have circular references before journal submission.
Our intention was more to benefit preprint readers than the journal(s), however. The journal(s) can and should be notified of the related manuscript at time of submission. Cover letters are very useful for this. Note that this is true whether you include circular references in the submitted files or not, and whether you post preprint versions at all or not. It is also often possible to upload the related manuscript as supplementary information for reviewers, which is especially useful if the publication venue uses double blind referencing, you haven't posted preprints, you submit to different journals, or you have reason to expect the two papers are likely to be reviewed by different people.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> "But in order to cite the second paper in the first paper, the second
> paper needs to be published first"
>
>
>
In my opinion, that is simply incorrect. **To cite a paper it should not be first published or peer reviewed.** If you have it on arXiv you can simply cite the arXiv version. But even without it, you can cite it as an "unpublished manuscript".
If you are concerned about reviewers who will doubt the correctness of the results since they have not yet been peer reviewed, then you must first publish the first paper, without *basing* your results on paper 2 (but only citing it as a related work), and then only publish paper 2.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/05
| 1,340
| 5,522
|
<issue_start>username_0: I took 14 years to finish my Ph.D. Mostly this was due to a health problem (now cured); partly it was because I bit off too large a research problem. It's done now, though, and I'm applying for an academic/research position.
I'm embarrassed to write 2008–2022 in the column next to the line that describes my Ph.D. And I'm wary of mentioning a health problem in a C.V. What's the best way I can frame it? Could I put only the year of completion? Mention only the last 7 years? Small type?<issue_comment>username_1: You can just list the completion year. You will have to account somehow for what you were doing in the interim - perhaps that was a job so you could support yourself.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: As has been mentioned a few times on this site, your CV is for facts about your career. Health, and other things that are not very directly career related, should be left out.
I only list the completion dates of my degrees on my CV. However, listing only a completion date does nothing to hide the duration of the degree; you did something before you started your PhD, and that should have a completion date listed. If you had some other job during your PhD, you might list that.
In academia, your publications count far more than the length of your PhD. Speaking from experience: I completed my PhD faster than 99% of physical science PhDs, and exactly zero academics care about that fact (it was good for my bank account).
If you are asked about the 14 year period, you can simply say "My studies were interrupted for personal reasons which are no longer relevant." You can provide more detail if you like; while your health problem may have been rare, health problems are common and people understand they are not voluntary. I would not want to work for an employer who would choose not to hire me because of my past health problems, both common and rare. Regardless of the wording you use, articulate that the problem you had will not recur.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Add a section on research experience and then describe the kind projects you have done during those 13 years, like
* 2008-2011 We carried out research on ...
* 2012-2015 We worked on some problem...
etc...
Likewise you can add different sections like teaching experience where you can describe the same years again that you taught (as a TA maybe).
You can also break your 13 years into two or more segments and say that first five years you worked as a project assistant or research assistant, etc..
But make sure to add as much rigor as possible for those 13 years so that it doesn't look like you have or have been wasted.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: There's no shame in your PhD taking 14 years.
As someone who reviews CVs on a regular basis for hiring decisions, I'd actually see this as a sign that you're persistent and capable of finishing something massive even in the face of difficulties.
I don't think anyone (reasonable) would see this as a negative thing, even if it wasn't due to health reasons.
At the end of the day, a PhD is a marathon, not a sprint. The actual research doesn't necessarily have to be that hard. What completing it demonstrates is persistence and the ability to gradually churn out a really good piece of work with a consistent abmount of effort over a very long period of time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Definitely don't mention a health problem in your CV. As a general rule, health issues count against your application. It's not that universities or research institutes are full of monsters who trash every application from someone with health problems; rather, it's simply that they receive the maximum benefit from hiring the most productive person they can. This is the way the incentives are laid out. If you have two equivalently credentialed candidates applying for a job, and one has health issues, the sick one will be perceived as having less potential for productivity. Even if you assert that you are fully cured, your evaluators might wonder if you could really put a yearslong affliction behind you so easily.
As for the length of your PhD, I am less concerned about the 14 years and more concerned about the embarassed attitude you seem to have. This attutide will surely hurt you more than the mere length of your PhD. In my experience, if you make something out to be a big deal yourself, people tend to respond by treating it as a big deal. If you come off as going out of your way to conceal the length of your PhD, that looks terrible. If you come out of the gate on the defense trying to explain away the 14 years in terms of circumstances beyond your control, you will probably remain on the defense for the whole application process. These are the things you seem to be trying to do.
However, if your appliation materials make you seem like someone who wanted a faculty/reasearch job so badly that you put in the time to earn a competitive body of work, you will look like a dedicated professional. If you sound like someone who didn't want to move on until you felt mature enough to be a leader, you will sound wise and prudent. Just make sure that you carefully finesse this narrative in your application and interviews (because if you are too overt you still sound like you are making a big deal out of your PhD length).
Bear in mind that a 14-year PhD also says that your PI liked you enough to continue funding you for so long instead of pushing you out the door.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/05
| 809
| 3,471
|
<issue_start>username_0: The field is mathematics (functional analysis). As we get ready to post a paper on arxive, we realized that one of the results here disproves a conjecture proposed in another paper.
Assuming the author of that conjecture is still around, is it good practice to communicate with the author first before we post our paper?
Conversely, would it be impolite/rude to post our paper without notifying the conjecture's author?<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I'd be more than happy to be notified and to see an early copy of your work. Among other things it might save me some work and would put my mind to rest in any case.
Assuming you cite the other author then it would be polite to notify them so that it isn't a surprise when your work appears.
You did cite them, I hope.
---
Note that sometimes such things happen when the new author doesn't know about the earlier work so it isn't always possible to notify the original author. But since you noticed, yes, let them know.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you were claiming that someone had made a mistake in their paper (in mathematics), then in that situation you should notify them beforehand and give them a chance to rebut your claim. (Keep in mind one of the possibilities would be that the claims in your paper are correct but you didn't understand the claims in their paper.) However, a refuted conjecture isn't a mistake, because a conjecture isn't a claim at all, only an informed guess (or, in some cases, a provocative way to ask a question). Hence, you aren't under some obligation to inform them before making the paper public. You certainly can if you want, and they could have some further information, for example further context for the conjecture, that would help you produce a better paper.
However, if you're asking about notifying them roughly simultaneously with putting it on the ArXiv, I don't see why you're asking. Mathematicians have a hard enough time getting anyone to read their papers as it is; by some measures of what it means to 'read', the median paper is probably read by fewer than one person not including authors and referees. The person who proposed this conjecture is naturally someone who is likely to be interested in your paper, and of course it is to your advantage if they know about it. If this is a well-connected senior mathematician who organizes conferences and workshops and might help you publicize your work further, even better. Without being obnoxious about it (and letting someone know that you have resolved their conjecture is definitely not obnoxious), you want to publicize your work to interested parties as much as possible.
Also, this person is a likely referee for your paper, and it will speed the process along if they happen to have already read your preprint prior to being asked to referee!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, you should notify the author of the conjecture that you believe yourself to have rebutted.
In addition to the other reasons given, that other author, being human, will have some emotional investment in the conjecture, and thus will be motivated to give your rebuttal the highest level of scrutiny.
After all, it may be that you are the one in error and the other author's reasoning is in fact quite sound, and if this is indeed the case it is best for everybody involved to expose the error as soon as possible, wherever that error may be.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/06
| 854
| 3,674
|
<issue_start>username_0: If one has a publicly available dataset depositored in an online depository such as Zenodo or Figshare, is it suitable for the same data be stored in a separate location such as ResearchGate that can use the same DOI? I am not sure if this would count as dual publication, or if this is even valid for this type of data. This is assuming:
* The exact same datasets
* The same DOI is used for both sources i.e. no new DOIs
* The data is publically available and the depository's license reflects this
This may also be complicated if the dataset is updated in the future, as it may then need to be updated in both locations.<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I'd be more than happy to be notified and to see an early copy of your work. Among other things it might save me some work and would put my mind to rest in any case.
Assuming you cite the other author then it would be polite to notify them so that it isn't a surprise when your work appears.
You did cite them, I hope.
---
Note that sometimes such things happen when the new author doesn't know about the earlier work so it isn't always possible to notify the original author. But since you noticed, yes, let them know.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you were claiming that someone had made a mistake in their paper (in mathematics), then in that situation you should notify them beforehand and give them a chance to rebut your claim. (Keep in mind one of the possibilities would be that the claims in your paper are correct but you didn't understand the claims in their paper.) However, a refuted conjecture isn't a mistake, because a conjecture isn't a claim at all, only an informed guess (or, in some cases, a provocative way to ask a question). Hence, you aren't under some obligation to inform them before making the paper public. You certainly can if you want, and they could have some further information, for example further context for the conjecture, that would help you produce a better paper.
However, if you're asking about notifying them roughly simultaneously with putting it on the ArXiv, I don't see why you're asking. Mathematicians have a hard enough time getting anyone to read their papers as it is; by some measures of what it means to 'read', the median paper is probably read by fewer than one person not including authors and referees. The person who proposed this conjecture is naturally someone who is likely to be interested in your paper, and of course it is to your advantage if they know about it. If this is a well-connected senior mathematician who organizes conferences and workshops and might help you publicize your work further, even better. Without being obnoxious about it (and letting someone know that you have resolved their conjecture is definitely not obnoxious), you want to publicize your work to interested parties as much as possible.
Also, this person is a likely referee for your paper, and it will speed the process along if they happen to have already read your preprint prior to being asked to referee!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, you should notify the author of the conjecture that you believe yourself to have rebutted.
In addition to the other reasons given, that other author, being human, will have some emotional investment in the conjecture, and thus will be motivated to give your rebuttal the highest level of scrutiny.
After all, it may be that you are the one in error and the other author's reasoning is in fact quite sound, and if this is indeed the case it is best for everybody involved to expose the error as soon as possible, wherever that error may be.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/06
| 799
| 3,636
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is a problem that comes up every now and then when I am asked to review a paper.
In my old field of research (robotics), papers straddled the line between creative problem solving and theoretically sound science. The general layout of all of the papers is to first provide a scientific reason that your method should work, and then present the method and any tweaks you had to make in order for the actual engineering problem to be solved.
Many times this led to a dubious scientific background and leaps of logic.
Here is an example: A paper might be about an algorithm to solve X problem. X is something that humans do naturally (for instance, grasping a delicate object without breaking it), so logically one would go to the scientific literature to find out how humans do it. The paper would then include a detailed and theoretically correct background section into the biology that governs human abilities. Then, the paper would include a big leap in logic that is not supported by the actual science, and that leap in logic would be used to justify their algorithm. Authors would state this leap as though it is an established scientific fact, when in fact the science is either unsettled or their conclusions are wrong *about the biology*.
The problem is that the algorithm does in fact work when tested on the engineering system (a robot, in our continuing example). It just doesn't actually have any significant resemblance to the biology that the authors claim it was based on. So really the issue isn't that the algorithm is a bad one or that the testing and data were fudged; it's that the justification of the design didn't follow from the evidence presented. If it weren't presented as though it was decided fact I wouldn't even think about it.
In addition, it is highly unlikely that, if I were to ask the authors to justify their results better, they would be able to do it—the science simply doesn't support it, but they tinkered with it enough that it works.
What would be an appropriate response here?<issue_comment>username_1: It's appropriate to respond just as you have here: criticize the unfounded motivation and ask that the authors present their paper without it. For example:
>
> the authors suggest that humans and other great apes navigate diverse terrain using wheels, however the authors do not support this assertion with appropriate citations to the literature on human physiology, and it seems to conflict with evidence that apes in fact use legs. Therefore, while their horse-drawn wheeled cart does seem like a promising logistical solution, I recommend that they remove any suggestion that this solution is biologically motivated unless the authors can provide sufficient references for their assertions.
>
>
>
As a neuroscientist I must say I very much sympathize with this problem, and occur it regularly on other Stack Exchange sites as people confuse what is known and useful within artificial neural networks with what is known about biological brains and neural circuits. However, while it's understandable to encounter these issues among learners in a field, it's not something that should ever make it into published papers.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would just ask the authors to rewrite that part to ensure the science is correct, and state the algorithm is *inspired* by the biological aspects of human abilities.
This is how researchers in the bio-inspired (nature inspired) meta-heuristics research areas approach the problem; FYI, these researchers design algorithms that mimic biological processes.
Upvotes: 5
|
2022/09/06
| 2,422
| 10,496
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been employed on a project at a German University for over a year and a half and got a half-time working contract.
Even though I am getting paid, I have not been required from my supervisor to do much besides working on my own project. I did spend some time preparing questionnaires for our data collection, entering our responses in a data analysis program and preparing a couple of conferences. I also went on fieldwork with my professor for 3 months and took a language course for the fielwork as well, but besides that I really feel I have not done much work to cover my 30 hours contract with the university. There are entire weeks in which I really do not do anything for her, and just work on my project at my own path.
I know my situation is different with other PhD students, who are constantly busy teaching courses and fulfilling other tasks assigned to them by their supervisors. In comparison to most of the experiences I have heard from PhD candidates, I have a very relaxed life and work at my pace.
I am starting to worry a little and to wonder if my situation is normal for a PhD student in Germany, or if I am doing something wrong. Should I assign search for my own tasks or ask my supervisor to assign me more work? I have not taught any courses yet, but that is also because I am new to the discipline and was hoping to widen my knowledge before doing it, but I still want to do it in one semester or two.
Is this normal? Can I expect it to continue?<issue_comment>username_1: Though I can't say much about Germany (or know what your specific field is), here is the normal way things work for students in the biological sciences in the US for someone paid as a research assistant, which seems similar to your position:
Professors write grants for research projects. Though applications for these grants are typically very specific, the work done may not be, because it is known and understood that science is messy and the productive avenues for a project are expected to shift over the 3-5 year span of a grant. Portions of these grants are expected to be used to pay graduate students who will work on the proposed projects.
Graduate students are expected to do research, publish papers, etc, on the way toward finishing their thesis. The topic they work on is within the general scope of the grant they are paid on, but there is nothing material that distinguishes between "work for the professor" and "work on the thesis".
In this system, as long as a student is "doing research" in the sense that they are working on some aspect of scientific projects that will result in publishable work, including data collection, data analysis, and writing, as well as reading papers/conducting literature reviews, attending conferences, participating in lab discussions, they are "doing work" on the grant that pays for their position.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes in Germany it is quite common.
Enjoy the freedom, do not limit yourself to doing menial tasks like collecting data, but dig deep in the assumptions behind your study and question them (at least with yourself).
Spend your time in deep theoretical questions, ignore teaching courses. it is mostly a bureaucratic thing to perform, especially at later stage in your career if you end up in the anglo-saxon world (they officially require experience in teaching courses, seemingly because they value a lot this skill, in practice because they cannot afford to pay the time needed to prepare the courses, so they want someone ready to work 40 hours per week and additionally teach courses).
In three years from now, you will be either someone that did their PhD under supervision of prof. xyz, or you will be someone with a solid knowledge on field abc, that did a PhD with prof. xyz.
The difference in term of career will be probably minimal, positions in research are extremely difficult to get, the difference in effort will be quite large (detrimental if you question the basic analytic assumption), the but your peers will definitely smell the difference between "another pawn of professor xyz" and "a researcher on the field abc".
You can do both paths by staying in good relation with your advisor abc, but one will be much more rewarding.
Final note: now you have the most stable contract in research you can dream of (yes, even if it just a scolarship of 3 years), so take your time to dig the topics you like. It is an unique chance. Enjoy the impostor syndrome and the path full of doubts about yourself you will undertake: it is normal, and being a researcher you have the freedom of answering "I don't know" to questions, it is not like when you were a student having to pass exams ;) , and you can take the time to look for the answers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Nothing wrong with your current situation.
I am a postdoctoral researcher now, and I have a similar situation to you for both Ph.D. and postdoctoral work (both are in Japan).
My supervisors on both Ph.D. and postdoctoral (different persons) never specifically assign me tasks. I just did my own Ph.D. research theme and now postdoctoral research theme. For my Ph.D., I was granted a scholarship, not a research grant.
>
> Should I assign search for my own tasks or ask my supervisor to assign me more work?
>
>
>
You should search for your own tasks but consult with your supervisor. In my case, I do my own theme with my own path. My Ph.D. supervisor at that time just gave me suggestions about what I did and monitored my research once a month via meeting. He mostly revised my manuscript draft for conferences and journals. Being a Ph.D. candidate, you should publish as early as and as often as possible. That is enough to satisfy 30h working hours per week (If I were your supervisor, I would expect one publication draft from you every 3-4 months after the first year).
>
> Is this normal? Can I expect it to continue?
>
>
>
Yes, it is normal, and you can continue. But remember, you have limited time (3 years). The research project is also limited by amount and time, and other Ph.D. candidates cannot fulfill the graduation requirements (number of published papers, etc.) at the time the project ends.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As paid a PhD student (in Germany), working towards your thesis **is** your primary job. So your feeling that you haven't done any work covering your 30 hour contract is completely misplaced. There is no reason to feel guilty about primarily working on your own research, this is simply your job.
That being said. There might be a minimum amount of teaching that you are expected to do over the course of your contract (or not depending on the university/contract). The fact that you haven't been assigned any teaching tasks would not necessarily mean that you won't be, and not having done your teaching obligations might prevent you from getting your PhD. So to prevent having to doing all your teaching while also finishing your thesis, it would be advisable to be proactive about this. Find out if any teaching obligations exist for you. If so, talk to however coordinates teaching assignments in your department and ask to be assigned your teaching duties. Of course, do this while also talking to your advisor and keep them in the loop.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Maybe I can give some insight of how the German system works, I'm currently a post-doc in the system having done my PhD elsewhere, but I know enough to explain teaching loads.
Often the PhD (or postdoc) is funded directly by the university, this comes with some assumptions that the staff member will perform a certain amount of teaching in addition to their other duties. This is probably what is happening with the other PhD students you mentioned, they are assigned teaching duties along with their regular duties of producing high quality PhD work and thesis.
In addition to this method, if the supervisor has an alternative source of funding (say from the ERC) or the student has acquired their own funding, then things are a bit different. Since the funding is now no longer coming from the university there are no teaching duties attached to it and the only duties of the PhD student is to produce high quality PhD work. Perhaps this is the case with you, if your supervisor has said your funding comes from a grant then this may explain the difference between you and your peers. The lack of teaching duties may then just be your supervisor giving you freedom from what is seen as a distraction by many in academia, or they may have found a way to shift your teaching duties to later in your PhD.
As others have said take advantage of the freedom you have, if you want to make the most of your PhD try to learn your field deeply, sit in on courses that are related to your project (even if you won't be able to directly use them), or perhaps start/organise a reading group on a topic that may be relevant for you, and many others in the group. Even if these don't directly relate to your research topic, if you pick the right things to learn about (not too close to your field, not too far away, and having some reason to expect this knowledge might be useful in the future) then the time invested in them now will pay for itself later in your PhD and future academic career as you can apply tools and make leaps which give much more interesting research results.
Regarding teaching, this isn't me saying there is no benefit to you to teach a course or run a tutorial. I found (coming from physics) that running tutorials led me to have a deeper understanding of the subjects you were tutoring since you were confronted with having to understand everything in the course and had to find multiple ways to explain an idea to people who understand things very differently to how you understand them, giving you a more wholistic and deeper view of the subject. Though the benefits to you do depend on what kind of tutorial you run, just completing the assignment sheet in front of the students gives a lot less insight then actively guiding them as they try to understand the subject (and is probably not quite as useful for the students either). So I'd recommend that at some point during your PhD you engage in some tutoring and you can speak to your supervisor about that, but the fact that you aren't doing it right now isn't something that indicates you are a lower quality student or doing something wrong.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/06
| 972
| 4,168
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently receive an editorial letter that is unwilling to share referee reports. The letter explicitly mentions the existence of such report but the editor don't want to send it to me.
Is not sending referees reports normal and happen frequently?
Related: [How to interpret this rejection email from Journal of American Math Society? Anything to read between the lines?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/122823/how-to-interpret-this-rejection-email-from-journal-of-american-math-society-any)
---
I decided to accept the second answer, though all answers are very good. The editor told me that the referee is unwilling to share his report. This is exactly the case suggested by the David's answer.<issue_comment>username_1: As far as I'm aware of, this is highly **not** normal. Peer review in journals normally means that you get to see the review as an author. Any other decision may show some lack of trust between the editor and the author. For example,
1. the editor thinks the author is a "crank";
2. or does not deserve a serious treatment;
3. or that the specific paper submitted was clearly below the acceptance threshold of that journal so that a serious review was not even conducted (in this case there is a "review" containing one or two paragraphs, stating the paper is clearly below the bar). This case is called "desk reject".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, the web sites for sending in referee reports often have spaces for two reports, one for the author (and editor) and one for only the editor. I've often left the second space blank, so that all my comments could (and presumably would) be forwarded to the author. But it's entirely possible for a referee to put almost nothing in the first space and put almost all comments in the second space. (I wrote "almost" because the web site software often requires you to put something in the first space, but it can't detect that your something is worthless.) In such a case, the editor could make a decision but couldn't forward anything useful to the author. (Of course, the editor could also look for a new referee.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: This is definitely **not normal**. It implies something went wrong. One possible explanation is that the reviewer wrote something highly confidential and the editor isn't sharing it. Alternatively, the reviewer wrote something really bad (e.g. rude/abusive/sexist/irrelevant) and the editor isn't sharing it.
Still, when that happens (I've seen it as an editor), the more common thing to do is to just not tell the authors of the existence of the confidential review, which avoids the authors asking questions like this one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Contrary to other opinions here, in my experience as an author, reviewer and editor it is entirely normal to receive referee reports that should not be shared with the author. This is an action taken by the referee and not the editor normally. Some reasons why referees don't want the text of their opinion shared with the authors.
1. They know the author well and their identity would definitely become obvious should the report be shared.
2. The report contains technical details that impact on the paper, so need to be in the report, but would definitely break anonymity if shared, because it would allow the author to immediately work out the referee.
3. The referee is unsure about whether they are correct in what they are saying. They might say something like "I think this might have been done before, but I'm not sure where. Try X, they are likely to know for sure."
4. The report is very short, and the referee simply doesn't think it's particularly useful to give the author. This is particularly true of quick opinions, which many journals in mathematics try to obtain before a full referee's report, which can take a long time.
5. The referee wrote a report, and it contains personal details about somebody -- the author, referee, or a third party -- that they think would be inappropriate to be shared with the author.
6. The referee clicked the wrong box in the form.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/06
| 433
| 1,865
|
<issue_start>username_0: My wife moved from India in 2021. She has a green card and a master's degree in physics. When she got here she decided to study radiation therapy at a nearby community college. She got her foreign transcript evaluated through a website and gave those to the community college.
There was no issue, but now the community college is making her retake a physics fundamental course and lab as prerequisites to get into the radiation therapy program. The community college says this is due to some new rule (new prerequisites).
Is there anything she can do to not take these prerequisites? Is this even normal? She has even published some things related to physics.<issue_comment>username_1: Ask them what "due to some new rule" means specifically -- in particular, ask them for *the rule*.
You can always ask them to waive the rule, or to exempt your wife from the rule. Whether they can and will do so depends on what the rule actually says, but that is not something we can help you here.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Getting credits transferred is always iffy, especially from a foreign school, and the requirements might be coming from the accreditor or whatever bureaucratic entity supervises the CC. So there's probably nothing you can do that you haven't already tried to get the course waived completely.
But you could ask whether she can take the final to place out of the course. Alternatively, the CC might be more amenable to an exception making the course a co-requisite rather than a pre-requisite if she can make the case that she's ready for the radiology program.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The options are:
* Meet the community college's requirements for transfer credit. We do not know what those are.
* Study radiation therapy somewhere with better rules.
* Choose not to get that degree.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/07
| 3,236
| 13,260
|
<issue_start>username_0: It's my first time teaching a college class as an instructor. My grade breakdown is as follows:
* Worksheets 15%
* Lab attendance and participation 15%
* Homework 40%
* Final Exam 30%
* Discussion forum 3% extra credit
I have two TAs who have been doing the homework and worksheet grading. I provided the rubric for the homework to my TAs and they told me that there was a "distribution" in the grades. But after the initial check-in, I never checked the grade distribution again.
Now it is the end of the term and after receiving the (published) homework grades from my TAs, I see that they have a 98% average with virtually all students having a grade above 95%. That is: 55% of the students' grades are nearly perfect.
The attendance and participation grades have not been published yet and the final exam has not been written. Since this is my first course as an instructor, I fear the department's response [because the grades might be too high](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116460/grades-are-too-high-for-the-department-what-should-i-do).
But irrespective of the department's response, I'd like to have a grade distribution that's a bit more spread out. I've been writing and re-writing reasons for wanting a grade distribution but it turns out finding these reasons is harder than I thought. I guess it's just an intuition.
Obviously, I'm to blame big time for not having more grade components, to begin with. I'm also partially to blame for not keeping up with my TA's grading but I also told them repeatedly that I was looking for a "distribution" on the homework and feel like they did not warn me that the grades were very high. It's too late for all of that now.
Be all of that as it may, my students will take their final exam soon and they have not received their participation grades yet. I would like to see a grade distribution that roughly ranks the students according to their skills and that makes the testing harder than it has been so far. What are my options, and which one is best? Make use of the participation grade? Make the final exam harder?
---
Update:
Thanks for the amazing support, your sympathy with my situation, and your helpful responses!
The class I'm teaching is an intro STEM class at a highly selective school. This particular STEM major is very popular, so I imagine that the department wants to use the grading scheme to reduce the number of students.
I based my homework assignments on those from a previous instructor who had a more stereotypical grade distribution. If anything I made them a bit harder. So it's probably the grading instructions to my TAs that led to the differences.
Few of you have said anything about the role of participation grades. Most students were not particularly engaged during lectures (despite me trying to interact with them and using tools like jamboards and surveys etc). So I've been considering not giving every student a 100% for participation but more like something centered around 90% and differentiating from there. I said nothing about the way participation would be graded in the syllabus.
I also didn't specify the grade cut-offs in the syllabus. AFAIK, I can determine the cut-offs myself, within reason. Some students will understandably be annoyed if the cut-off for an A is set at a 93%.<issue_comment>username_1: The goal of a test is not to deliberately establish a grade distribution. There is a standard to you need them to meet and the test should reflect that. If they all pass the standard comfortably then they should all have high grades.
I understand most courses have a different distribution from what you describe here, but I think it is best that you produce the test without being influenced by the current grades, and just honestly set a bar for the standard you need the students to cover on the subject, nothing more, nothing less.
I think the best way to shield yourself from criticism is to produce tests and assignments that follow the standard required of the course. That will be your best defense even if someone criticizes the test scores later.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Obviously, I'm to blame big time for not having more grade components, to begin with.
>
>
>
Actually, your grading system seems reasonable. You have a test, homework, a lab component, and a participation component. Having more than one exam might have been a good idea, but your system is totally defensible.
>
> I'm also partially to blame for not keeping up with my TA's grading but I also told them repeatedly that I was looking for a "distribution" on the homework and feel like they did not warn me that the grades were very high.
>
>
>
Actually, I think you should consider this more carefully. You have multiple TAs: did they both grade the same way? If so, it sounds like you were not as clear as you thought you were. If not, then you may have a bigger problem: students who had one TA got lower grades than students who had the other. Either way, you should have caught this before now.
>
> It's too late for all of that now.
>
>
>
Yes, it is. Try to understand what happened, but it would be unfair to regrade the homework or change the grading scheme at this point (unless one TA was way harder than the other, in which case, you may need to "normalize"...which will reduce your distribution even further).
>
> What are my options, and which one is best? Make use of the participation grade? Make the final exam harder?
>
>
>
It would be unfair to give an insanely-difficult test just to force the required distribution. Instead, give a reasonably test with a reasonable grading scheme. "Reasonable" is a broad term...you can choose something on the more difficult side of reasonable, but don't overdo it.
As for the participation, it is likely too late there. You should have been clear from the beginning what the participation requirements were and how the grading would be done. And if you were not, you will have to use some reasonable, commonly-accepted standard.
Finally, consider the conversion between numeric grades and letter grades. If you have already defined how percentages translate to grades, you should not change them now. But if you have not, you may have some flexibility here. As before, don't overdo it -- it is not fair to say that 99.5% is an A and 99.3% is a B; if you end up in a situation like this, you will have to award lots of good grades and take your lumps from the department. But on the other hand, a curve like 93%=A, 85%=B would be fine, even if a curve like 85=A, 70=B would be more typical for certain types of courses.
One last suggestion: warn the students (without blaming the TAs) that many students have very high grades going into the exam, so the exam scores will be very important. Students are rightfully upset when they go from an A+ to a C after an exam, especially when the exam is only 30% of their grade. Telling them that this may happen in advance will soften the blow.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me add a few points to supplement the excellent answers of [Juan](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/188480/75368) and [username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/188490/75368).
There are some reasons why you might have such a narrow distribution, including an anomalous group of students. This happens, and statistically is guaranteed to happen (very) occasionally. I've had such a group in the past. I had to work especially hard to keep up with them, producing challenging work. They did well, but they earned it. There is no need to "spread" the distribution for a group of hard working excellent students. Doing so artificially is actually unethical.
While some institutions frown on it, it should be possible for every student in a class to win full marks and possible for every student to fail. If a group is motivated, and if you do your work well, the former is possible. If they are disengaged, don't care about the subject, the latter can happen. I've usually told my students this as a motivator. I've rarely had to fail anyone who actually worked on the material. I wasn't as "enlightened" early in my career, but grew into the role of instructor and mentor.
You are new at this, and novices (even novice teachers) aren't perfect. You may have made some mistakes in targeting the course to your audience. The solution isn't to change the expectations late in the game ("Oh, by the way, this isn't a hundred-yard dash, it is really a marathon. Heh heh heh"), but to rethink the process for the next time you deliver this (or another) course.
Your assignments set your expectations. If the students meet those expectations, then they should get the rewards. You can set higher expectations, but not in mid-stride.
As a learning experience, you might ask a colleague or two to look at your assignments and exams, etc. to give you advice. Perhaps they will have something to say that will help you set more appropriate expectations for the next course. And perhaps they will just say that you did fine.
I'll also suggest that if there was an error on your part, it may not have been grading too leniently, but not offering enough work that was sufficiently challenging.
Teaching is also a learning experience.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: This is of course just an anecdote from universities I have experience with, but the best advice I can give is this: always prepare the class with the assumption that the grades handed to you by the TA will be so high as to make no difference to the student's final grades. As a result, I would try to make sure the big-ticket items like tests are graded by you, or via scantron. TAs are for labs, homework, etc, while the tests are for distribution enforcement.
At least in my experience, most TAs will universally grade too generously, as it's often what they're taught to do, and what the departments prefer as well. And furthermore, asking them to be the ones that make or break a student is not fair. They don't have the professional training to assume so much of the University's (legal) responsibilities, and it's just a heavy task.
It's little help now, but prepare your future classes expecting your TAs to keep handing you universal scores of 90+. Because among every TA I've ever known, that's pretty par for the course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Why not answer this question with statistics?
How many students are taking your class? If this is a large subject group, then there is bound to be a greater spread and less likely that all will maintain a higher grade. You never showed the actual class size.
Second, how many have taken this class before. Pre STEM classes are absolutely everywhere right now.
On a long enough timeline, with a large enough subject pool, you'll see regression to mean. Perhaps you haven't given it enough time or large enough pool?
OR perhaps you're not doing anything wrong...
The last thing, and I honestly don't understand this, is why would a college want their students to fail? I spoke to a mathematics department about a computer program teaching mathematics. The end of the course resulted in a pass/fail final. From this I found that of the students who took the class, completed all of the homework and received 100% on participation and cognition, studied and tried... 17% would fail the class for no discernable reason. And I don't mean because of issues with mental health, stress, family, death, disability as those would allow the students to withdraw from the course. I mean failure for 'no discernable reason'.
I realize schools need to make money, but you shouldn't continue to use programs which fail students intentionally. Perhaps you're doing nothing wrong.
It's easy to forget you have an ethical obligation to your students, not just your college.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Obviously this is only relevant for future occasions, but personally I'd assign a higher percentage to the exam, less percentage to homework (as it is relatively easy to submit good homework without actually having done good work themselves), and I'm reluctant to grade participation and attendance at all, because I don't like the students to participate or even attend *because* there are marks to be earned. I prefer them doing it out of genuine interest or the insight that this will likely improve their performance where it counts, and give them useful knowledge for their later studies and career. If grades are won through participation, this encourages annoying and meaningless contributions from students who think they should do this to improve their grades.
Note also that rather than grading some components, if your department allows it you can make it compulsory to achieve a minimum standard there for even qualifying for the exam, e.g., somebody needs 50% of homework marks to qualify, 75% attendance, and/or once present something in class, but these marks are then ultimately not counted.
Even though exams are not 100% reliable at assessing the achievements of a student, I think they're still much better than the other components, and you also give yourself more control of the final mark if you rate the exam higher.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/07
| 2,232
| 9,281
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am studying Computer Science in an unknown, crap tier university in India. Due to my interest in Deep Learning, I've done some strong projects and internships in it. Word passed over and people started asking for help with things, and subsequently my current situation also happened because a professor came with the Head of Department in my university and asked me to work on an ML project for them. I agreed to it since it was some small work. Later I got to know that this was going to be the PhD thesis of that professor, but I didn't mind it since it was a small work and also because the Head of Department is involved (if I rejected, they would probably punish me by intentionally reducing my internal marks and failing me).
The work I did for the paper was completely ridiculous but the professor was still very satisfied with it (it was on par with the quality of rest of the fake papers published in the journal he was going to publish in). I was also forced to fake the results for the paper and bluff up things. If anyone reads merely one standard paper in that area, and then takes a glance at this cooked up paper, they can easily figure out that its faked and is a completely worthless paper with zero academic contribution, and only helps the university and the professor to increase their paper count.
The problem is that the paper is now finished and the professor just said that he will put my name on the paper. I am strongly against this and I've tried saying this softly like "No sir, it's okay, you don't have to put me in the paper", but he is adamant and wants to put my name in the paper because I've helped him make it.
I'm still young in undergrad and I'm planning to pursue an MS in a good university and further pursue a PhD. I'm super worried about having a very bad and ridiculously faked up paper this early in my research career. Anyone in the future can ruin my career by mentioning that a paper that has my name on it is completely fake and unethical. I also won't be able to make it to any university for higher studies because the admins and professors at grad school can spot this ridiculous paper easily and reject my application right away. I am extremely worried about it and I'm having panic attacks thinking about this and my future, and I am not able to stop the professor from putting my name on the paper.
What can I do about this?
---
Addressing the points in the comments:
1. I did have two choices - yes and no. Had I said no and refused to participate in this fraudulent project, I would've been intentionally and illegally failed in the course, and committed to mental torture (this can happen in India unlike the US). This is like an offer that I cannot refuse and I said yes only to survive myself from this situation - which is why I say I was forced. It's like being held at gunpoint.
2. I cannot switch to another institution at this point (I'm a final
year student with still 8 months to graduate). And I don't think I
can harm my relationship with the Head here even after graduating
because I'm dependent on them for an LoR. Since an LoR from a
professor is better than one from industry, I have to obtain one
from the Head here because it is better than obtaining an LoR from
any other in this institution.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> The work I did for the paper was completely ridiculous but the professor was still very satisfied with it (it was on par with the quality of rest of the fake papers published in the journal he was going to publish in). I was also highly encouraged to fake the results for the paper and bluff up things. If anyone reads merely one standard paper in that area, and then takes a glance at this cooked up paper, they can easily figure out that its faked and is a completely worthless paper with zero academic contribution, and only helps the university and the professor to increase their paper count.
>
>
>
If your description is fair, this is not a "bad quality paper", it is a fraudulent one.
>
> The problem is that the paper is now finished and the professor just said that he will put my name on the paper. I am strongly against this and I've tried saying this softly like "No sir, it's okay, you don't have to put me in the paper", but he is adamant and wants to put my name in the paper because I've helped him make it.
>
>
>
Then don't say it softly. "It's okay, you don't have to put my name as an author" communicates "it is acceptable but not necessary that my name be concluded". A very reasonable response to this soft statement would be to include your name if they think your name should be included.
If you **do not want** your name associated with the paper, you must say this. You can still say it softly to start as, "I do not want my name on this paper," but you may need to insist with "I refuse to have my name on this paper". Ideally, I would get this documented e.g. in an email, so that you have something to refer to if your name is nonetheless associated with fraudulent work.
It's understandable that your position will be confusing to your advisor, because you've already participated in the faking of results, which makes it seem like you're on board with the whole enterprise. I would not recommend doing this in the future - if asked to produce fraudulent results, you should refuse immediately at that step and therefore not risk being credited for that fraudulent work. Of course, you could still be involved in a larger project in which other authors have not acted ethically and you feel your name needs to be withdrawn for those reasons, but you are still personally responsible for the specific individual work you do and the quality of that work.
Besides that, I don't know what to say. It seems you feel you are in a lab that regularly publishes fraud, in an institution that is permissive of fraud. I don't know what benefit you think you'll get from this arrangement. Maybe things are not really as bad as you make it sound here, but if they are, your next steps should all be about getting someplace else. Good luck.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I’ll add some thoughts on top of @BryanKrause’s excellent answer. To summarize a lot of information from the comments, the story I’m getting is that you:
1. faked data, but did so under coercion (or what you perceive as coercion) by the corrupt head of department;
2. now wish to distance yourself from the fraudulent research by refusing to be a coauthor of the work; and
3. do not seem to think that you could have behaved in any other way, or that you have any ethical responsibility for this fraudulent research being published or helping to get someone a fake PhD, as long as it doesn’t mention your name.
Well, I’m sorry to be a bearer of bad news, but I think this last belief is not quite right. If this research ends up getting published, then, regardless of whether it has your name on it or not, you will have been complicit in academic misconduct. And you already are complicit in misconduct, since you helped someone get a fraudulent PhD. Thus, if your career is hurt in some way by this unfortunate turn of events, you might be forced to acknowledge that it was your behavior, and the choices that you made, that played a role in those bad consequences.
Perhaps you acted under coercion, and if so that would be a mitigating factor that reduces your culpability to some extent. I’m not passing judgment, since I know only very few details about what happened. And I don’t actually have much in the way of practical advice I can offer. But, before you make any decisions about how to act, I’d advise you to first of all do some soul searching and face the fact that you cannot easily claim to be purely a victim in this situation. Your mindset about the situation seems to be misguided, and this might have led you to make wrong decisions in the past. Changing your mindset might lead you to better decisions going forward. For example, you could adopt the view that a corrupt academic is not an acceptable person to even want a letter of recommendation from, under any circumstances, and look for a path forward in your career that doesn’t involve caving to corrupt demands from such people. Even if that seems like an impractical approach to take, I think it would ultimately serve you better in the long term.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you have to be creative, and you should avoid fighting an injustice with another injustice.
There is a weak point in authorship, and it is the non-univoque relation between a person and the name of the person.
One smart solution is then to add noise to your name. This way, in the future, if you do not refer to the paper, it will not be easy to find out that the co-author of the paper is really you.
When you will give in to your professor request, ask them politely to put your name as "newres + the family name of your grand grand mother", in a form of respect towards her, and adding as well "Edgar" which is the nickname you *always* use to distinguish yourself from the other newres doing ugly stuff in CS.
Note: no paper publication forms, no publishers (not even the one doing big scams) are requiring ID to check authors'names.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/07
| 1,181
| 5,015
|
<issue_start>username_0: This question may seem like vague but I am still asking... What does make a research paper 'good' in pure mathematics ? I am asking this question independent of the journal where it gets published or the number of citation that the paper has. Is this depth of the content or some ingenious/out of the box approach ? Great mathematician <NAME> used the term 'the proof' from 'the book' in order to classify such papers. I personally feel the depth and the ingenious are somewhat contradictory because why did mathematicians then care about an elementary proof of prime number theorem as there was already proof of that using complex analysis ! I am just giving an example. Is it necessary to have a perfect proof each theorem in pure mathematics ?<issue_comment>username_1: A good research paper (actually, an excellent one) is a paper that not only solves a given problem (proves a given theorem), but also provides insight that might be useful more generally.
It isn't entirely the *existence* of a correct proof that matters, though the first proof of a long known problem is celebrated. It is more the nature of the proof.
For example, the Four Color Theorem (when I was young: the Four Color Hypothesis) is unsatisfactory to a mathematician, depending on computer analysis of a large number of cases. A clean, mathematical, proof of a few pages would be not only a breakthrough, but would let people think about similar (and even not similar) problems in a new way.
Mathematicians seek insight. It isn't until you have quite a lot of insight into one or more classes of problems that you are really a mathematician. It gives you the ability to postulate, somewhat accurately, what might be true. Once you have such ideas you know where to put your efforts. But without that you are just fishing in muddy waters.
I don't think I really measured up at the time I earned my doctorate, though my dissertation was very interesting (to a few people). But I did develop that understanding of the nature of mathematics over time.
---
[Four Color Theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem): Any planar map can be colored with four or fewer colors so that adjacent regions have different colors. Regions that only touch at a single point can have the same color.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caveat: I haven't followed up with the Four Color Theorem in years, so there may have been important advances that I don't know about. But we were happy, if unsatisfied, with the first proof.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you can hardly get a better answer than the paper “[What is good mathematics?](https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0702396.pdf)” by <NAME>: a world-famous mathematician answering precisely your question.
As you can see, "good mathematics" is presented there as a multi-dimensional concept: a paper can be good because it shows great problem-solving, and/or because it shows a masterful use of known techniques, and/or because it contains great new discoveries, and so on. I guess you will enjoy the reading.
As for your last line:
>
> Is it necessary to have a perfect proof each theorem in pure mathematics ?
>
>
>
...well, it depends on what you mean by "perfect". The proof have to be rigorous, clear and complete, of course. But many great papers contain proofs that later have been simplified and made more direct, elementary or general.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Try not to think about “mathematicians” because they are an imaginary abstraction. Think of real people instead, starting with yourself.
To get you started, are my criteria for a good mathematical paper:
1. I am paying for this paper. Not in money, but in time.
2. If I have wasted my time, I can’t ask the author for a refund.
3. So the paper has to be worth it.
(Reading papers is a gamble and it is the job of a journal editor to improve the odds.)
So at different times, a “good” paper could be:
* A first proof (even if ugly).
* A proof of a certain kind (eg. elementary rather than advanced).
* A proof with reason behind it, so that you can see *why* it works, not just *that* it works.
* A presentation showing general principles beneath a more complicated surface.
One can multiply the examples but the key point to remember is that mathematics is the pursuit of beauty - there would be no point in doing it if it weren’t - and that when it comes to matters of beauty, you are the judge. (If you see beauty where others don’t then you have to teach them, of course - it is the task of every artist in every field, throughout the ages.)
If there were definite rules for what makes a good mathematical paper “this one is worth 100 milliEulers”) then machines could do it all - write the papers, and read them too.
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/09/07
| 1,048
| 4,808
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing a report regarding a paper in mathematics, which I have spent three months reviewing. During this period, I have tried to understand the ideas presented by the authors, but in vain.
The format of the paper and the length of the proofs are making it hard, even to an experienced reader, to understand what the authors are trying to prove. In addition, there are some lexical mistakes overall throughout the paper.
Now, while the question addressed in the paper is novel. All the above mentioned problems have pushed me to opt for a rejection. But then, I'm hesitating and thinking about recommending a major revision instead, given that as I mentioned, the idea of the paper is novel.
So, is it normal to recommend a rejection solely based on the problems that I have mentioned or should one opt for a major revision instead?<issue_comment>username_1: In a case like this where you after a lot of effort cannot make out the contribution of the paper, a "reject with the possibility of a resubmit" is in order. My reason is that by returning "major revision", you are indicating that the contribution has sufficient value for publication (eventually and after lots of changes have been made). But what I understand from your write-up is that you cannot make out the contribution.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: My understanding (which I'm not sure is universal) is that a recommendation of major revision should indicate that you have high confidence that the authors can make the necessary changes (and in particular the necessary changes are possible!) for the paper to be accepted.
Given that you don't know if the paper contains a true theorem, I think this paper does not meet that threshold.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: That happened to me before. My suggestion is to give a major revision stating paper is incomprehensible in this state and requires major rewriting before it can be reviewed properly. I stated no other explanation in my case and that was good enough for the editor and authors. The paper was in a much better state in the next revision. If a paper is salvagable and contains novelty and/or results/experiments that can be of use to someone, it will be a disservice to the authors and the community to reject it outright.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: What is the journal you are reviewing for? Is it for the practitioner on the topic or for a broader audience?
If you think the proof will benefit from discussion with the practitioners, suggest major revision and give already a forecast "if the form will not improve substantially, both in lexicon and in clarity of exposed proof, I suggest rejection in the next revision".
If you think the idea is *really* novel, then go for rejection and suggest to improve a lot the manuscript and then submit it to a higher impact (pick whatever metrics you like) journal.
The editor will not like this review suggestion, but who cares.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In the given situation the most important thing for me would be to ask myself whether I believe that what the authors did there is not only original but ultimately correct, and that things can be repaired so that this becomes clear.
If a paper is incomprehensible and it's therefore not clear whether the claims are correct, this is a good enough reason for a rejection. If a paper is badly written and hard to understand, but ultimately the main results of the paper are in all likelihood correct and worthwhile (at the level of the journal in question), I'd ask for a revision.
An additional consideration is whether the writing of the authors disqualifies them sufficiently that you don't believe they are able to make the paper publishable without an unacceptable amount of editor and reviewer help even if results are potentially worthwhile. That may merit a rejection as well (I have seen obvious inability to handle mathematical formalism correctly and lack of understanding of what constitutes a valid proof in several papers even if the ideas behind them were good), but that'd be a subjective call depending on how sure you are.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Let me add another angle that may be considered harsh and cynical.
Papers should be readable when they are submitted; ensuring this takes some effort and time, and the authors should invest it. This author did a disservice to the editor and the referees by submitting a paper in such a bad shape. They are wasting everyone's time. A rejection "punishes" them and gives them a negative game-theoretical outcome for this. Condoning this behavior with a major revision encourages them to do the same again and again.
Not setting incentives to discourage this behavior is harmful to the community.
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/09/07
| 678
| 2,788
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently writing my master's thesis in physics and part of the introductory section is taken from a lecture my advisor gave during a group meeting. How do I site such a lecture?<issue_comment>username_1: I would not typically cite a lecture in a master's thesis, though you could ask your advisor for their thoughts which may differ from mine. It might be appropriate for a course assignment, but I'd expect a master's thesis to be more in the form of a publishable work, and there's not much use citing a private lecture for other readers unless it's truly the only source for the information, which I doubt is the case.
You'll need to instead find some other reference that covers the same topic, and read and understand it in more depth. It may be appropriate to ask your advisor for relevant references, but you likely should also be doing some reading on your own.
I'd also recommend getting advice on the scope of your thesis, as you do not want a thesis to spend too much time on the basics, otherwise you will not have space to develop depth of argument.
If, by some unusual circumstances, it actually is most appropriate to cite this lecture, you'd have to check whatever citation guide you are using for a related item like a speech or conference talk. You'd want to note at least the speaker, date, and venue
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: [IEEE style covers this.](https://ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf)
>
> <NAME>. (Year). Title of lecture [Type of Medium]. Available: URL
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZjlCk.png)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: References serve two purposes. First, they attribute priorities of thought. Second, they allow readers to go deeper on some issues. While there is now a tendency to ensure that readers can find the reverenced resource (with the use of DOI more common, etc.), attributing to the right person is still important. It used to be common in Mathematics paper to find citations of the type:
[14] *<NAME>, personal communication*
It seems to me that this applies in your case as well. Your masters thesis was informed / based / provoked by a lecture and you rightly want to attribute this to the lecturer.
I can understand that a reference to a lecture leaves the reader somewhat unsatisfied. In your case it might be possible to ask the lecturer and see whether (s)he can lead you to another publication or publications that were the base of the lecture. This type of reference is preferable as it allows the reader to access the original material. In this case, you can thank the lecturer in the introduction for the lecture.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/08
| 686
| 2,786
|
<issue_start>username_0: How should I reference footnotes inside a footnote. Do we have to have them superscripted?
---
6 For further clarification, see footnote 5.
How should I style **see footnote 5**?<issue_comment>username_1: I would not typically cite a lecture in a master's thesis, though you could ask your advisor for their thoughts which may differ from mine. It might be appropriate for a course assignment, but I'd expect a master's thesis to be more in the form of a publishable work, and there's not much use citing a private lecture for other readers unless it's truly the only source for the information, which I doubt is the case.
You'll need to instead find some other reference that covers the same topic, and read and understand it in more depth. It may be appropriate to ask your advisor for relevant references, but you likely should also be doing some reading on your own.
I'd also recommend getting advice on the scope of your thesis, as you do not want a thesis to spend too much time on the basics, otherwise you will not have space to develop depth of argument.
If, by some unusual circumstances, it actually is most appropriate to cite this lecture, you'd have to check whatever citation guide you are using for a related item like a speech or conference talk. You'd want to note at least the speaker, date, and venue
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: [IEEE style covers this.](https://ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf)
>
> <NAME>. Author. (Year). Title of lecture [Type of Medium]. Available: URL
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZjlCk.png)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: References serve two purposes. First, they attribute priorities of thought. Second, they allow readers to go deeper on some issues. While there is now a tendency to ensure that readers can find the reverenced resource (with the use of DOI more common, etc.), attributing to the right person is still important. It used to be common in Mathematics paper to find citations of the type:
[14] *<NAME>, personal communication*
It seems to me that this applies in your case as well. Your masters thesis was informed / based / provoked by a lecture and you rightly want to attribute this to the lecturer.
I can understand that a reference to a lecture leaves the reader somewhat unsatisfied. In your case it might be possible to ask the lecturer and see whether (s)he can lead you to another publication or publications that were the base of the lecture. This type of reference is preferable as it allows the reader to access the original material. In this case, you can thank the lecturer in the introduction for the lecture.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/09
| 692
| 3,217
|
<issue_start>username_0: My field of background is material science. I am writing a paper regarding some novel properties we discovered from a material system. I struggled a lot with the introduction. Since the entire work is a random discovery (but also pretty important), I wanted the introduction to focus on prior knowledge of the material. But my PI insists that we should have a "bigger picture" so that we can shoot for a better journal. I am wondering, is that really necessary for an editor and/or reviewer?<issue_comment>username_1: Introductions are often the only part of the paper that are being read. They give you a chance to explain why your result is important (in addition to many other things such as explaining what your result is). You have thought more about your results than any reviewers will ever do (unless the circumstances are truly extraordinary) and what is clear to you (a random discovery that is "pretty important") might not be so clear to them. The same goes for readers. A bad introduction can result in an unwarranted rejection.
You probably should listen to your PI and think about the "bigger picture".
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: An introduction should be both broad and specific.
Usually, you start with a rather broad view on the topic. It is possible to exaggerate this, if course. From this first, broader section it should become clear why it is important to work on your topic and what motivated your work. So stay focussed on what is relevant for your work.
While going further into the introduction, your text becomes more and more specific. Basically, you try to achieve a smooth transition between your broad start and the end of the introduction which should be very specific: There, you usually formulate your hypothesis in one way or another.
There are various ways to write a good introduction for a given paper, you only have to find one of those. As a general guideline, you should only write what is relevant in order to understand why your hypothesis is important and makes sense, not more, but also not less.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think your PI is correct here. You'll want to write different introductions depending on the audience, which depends in part on the journal. I suggest you read a sample of introductions from a few different relevant journals and analyze how they differ. If you do that, I suspect you will find that introductions in the broader scope or higher-impact journals tend to have a broader starting point and emphasize the bigger picture more, while a very focused introduction specific to a single material might make more sense in a specialist journal.
Now, ideally, the reviewer is an expert in the topic of your paper and can handle either type of manuscript, but in a generalist journal the editor and more importantly the readers are fairly unlikely to be specialists or have previous interest in the system you studied. If you don't accommodate them, why should your paper be published in that journal instead of a specialist one? If you want to say "because our finding is important" you'll want to explain why that is, which naturally leads back to explaining the bigger picture.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/09
| 1,654
| 6,727
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently finished my PhD in the Spring of this year and after taking some time off I have been on the job hunt looking to get into industry or a government position. One of my publications ended up being a collaboration between a few different groups, and one in particular was led by a Nobel Prize winning chemist. I didn't have any direct interactions with this person. I just happened to do my data analysis and writeup for the paper and sent it over to the first author.
Seeing as most people, even in our field, don't recognize every Nobel Prize winner's name in publication histories, would it be a faux pas if I name dropped this scientist in my resume or specifically mention that I collaborated with a Nobel Prize winner? I'm proud of the accomplishment (even if it was a bit of luck by circumstance) but I'm not sure if it just comes off as name dropping and snooty rather than highlighting my experience.<issue_comment>username_1: You wrote that you didn't interact with this person and want to write on your CV that you collaborated with them. That seems ethically very questionable to me.
If I understood your description correctly you have a scientific paper that has both you and the Nobel prize winner on its author list. You can and should put that paper on your CV (including the author list). But if there was no interaction between the two of you I wouldn't put anything more than that.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> after taking some time off I have been on the job hunt looking to
> get into industry or a government position.
>
>
>
None of the two sector's recruiters would be impressed by your publication with a Nobel Prize winner. Maybe if you were giving private lessons, there would be some rich parents (that do not understand anything, not even how exactly they became rich) caring about that.
On the other hand, in academia, a publication like that may be the one high impact publication that opens the door towards professorship (the Nobel Prize winner being co-author helping indirectly).
I feel you are trying to play the game "let's not say I collaborated with a Nobel Prize winner, but let's point to the fact I have the coauthorship in the paper and let's try to imply I collaborated with a Nobel Prize winner, so I am not lying, and it's the other person inferring that from my talking".
Well, sorry but half a lie is still a lie, even worse if you are trying to deceive someone.
Put yourself in the shoes of the receiving end. What would you think?
My opinion is that since you did not win the Nobel, such a remark will be ignored, but it may also be a rewarding technique. A gullible enough person may be impressed by such an anecdoctal fact and you will jump a couple of steps in the career ladder.
However, you should be smart enough to recognize the technique is rewarding *because* to put this technique in game, you need to have some insecurity (how do I stand out) leveraging on your ego (I did not collaborate with the Nobel Prize winner directly, but given the chance I would have been able to, so I can say that I did).
Plain and blunt, enjoy your ego and throw away your insecurity without silly tricks. Say that the Nobel Prize winner collaborated with you, not the other way around. Why risk with a small lie, when you can have success with a big lie?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If I would read in an application that the candidate worked together with a Nobel Prize winner, I would google the Nobel Prize winner (out of curiosity) and ask the candidate how was working together. I'd be disappointed to hear that you did not interact with each other. It would hurt your application, as I would start to wonder which facts in your CV are similarly stretched.
Just name him as one of the co-authors in your publication list. Usually, this list is not relevant for industry or public-service jobs, unless you should conduct research with the exact same topic.
Save this for some fun or anecdotal part of the application: If you are asked for some special thing in your last job, you can mention you have a publication with a Nobel Prize winner (who has this? cool), even though you did not really interact with him. Or if you are asked for a weakness, you could mention that you like to brag about your paper with a Nobel Prize winner, but you did not really interact with him. When delivered right, it might stick with the interviewer, but in a charming way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Name-dropping is just as obnoxious in an academic context as anywhere else. Most of the time people find this to be obnoxious because the name-dropping is gratuitous and has no relevance to the subject under discussion. In the case at issue, what exactly is your theory of the relevance of the Nobel prize here --- is it somehow the case that this person's prize-winning research on a different paper somehow rubs off on you due to a later academic collaboration on a different thing?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: *It depends on the context.*
**Yes, add the name:** If you are going to send your CV *around the globe*, with institutes and communities that may not know the Nobel Prize Laureate you've worked with, then yes, you can definitely add in your research summary, and also in your CV something like: "Worked with leaders in the field such as X". This shouldn't hurt.
**No need to, but wouldn't hurt much anyway**:
If your CV is to be sent narrowly to people who already know this Nobel Laureate, there's no need to emphasize this, though I wouldn't think it would hurt your chances anyway.
*Comment*: Other answers here mention it to be of "bad tase", "obnoxious", and so on. This may be the case, but it is irrelevant to the question whether it is an *effective* practice.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: *"would it be a faux pas if I name dropped this scientist in my resume or specifically mention that I collaborated with a Nobel Prize winner?"*
Say you are shortlisted and interviewed and they ask "what was it like working with Prof. X?" what would you say? I suspect if you just said that you had never actually interacted with them, just made a contribution to a paper that they also contributed to, I suspect that would be (i) a somewhat underwhelming anecdote and (ii) give a bad impression as it suggests that you may have been trying to mislead them into thinking that it reflected well on you, when really it was just good fortune rather than an accomplishment.
Having said which, I suspect many mathematics CVs mention Erdos numbers (mine is proof that not everybody with a finite Erdos number is a mathematician ;o) you could say your Prof. X number is zero?
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/09
| 720
| 3,134
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm used to publishing in a field where it's normal to submit papers in LaTeX format. The journal has a LaTeX class file. No fuss, no muss. Now I'm submitting a paper to journals in a field where the standard seems to be the following. They want both a Word file and a PDF file submitted, and they want them to follow style guidelines in a certain handbook. These style guidelines are things like using a certain citation style, but they don't deal with things like whether sections have numbers or whether a paper should have an abstract, which I suppose either (a) I'm supposed to do by imitating the journal's papers, or (b) they don't care about and will handle themselves if the paper is accepted.
I can generate a Word file using tools like pandoc and LibreOffice, but I'm a little perplexed by the idea that this is going to work without some conventions or best practices that don't seem to be explicit. Are they really going to pay an office worker to go through the whole document and reformat everything by hand to suit their preferences, or are they just assuming I'm going to do certain things the way they're used to? For example, from what little I recall of using Word 30 years ago, you can either format section headers by choosing a font, size, italics, etc., or you can define a style, which would presumably be a better practice. But this is just one of many styling issues that I would anticipate. There's going to be a style for block quotes, footnotes, the abstract, and so on.
How does this actually work for this type of journal? What do they use the PDF for, and what do they use the Word file for? Which format goes to the referee? Are there hidden conventions or best practices for how to set up the Word file?<issue_comment>username_1: Follow their guidelines as stated and don't try to guess about things they don't make explicit. It would probably be more efficient in the long run if you use a similar style to papers they already publish. But you can ask them, in any case.
Few papers are published as first submitted. Someone, you or they, will provide more production ready copy if the paper is accepted. Worry about it when you need to.
The pdfs might be for reviewers and the Word docs for production to "play with". But who can say?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is called typesetting. Almost all books, newspapers, magazines, and journals go through this process. Most writers do not use Latex, and for many kinds of page design Latex would not be suitable. Look at a copy of Nature for example.
Yes, someone will go through the document and fix all the styles. Probably the PDF will be sent to the referees, with a cover page and line numbers added. The Word document might be used by the typesetter to copy and paste the text into some other software.
The main best practice in Word is to use styles for the headings. Follow the style guidelines in the handbook, and for things that are not mentioned (such as whether headings are numbered) copy an article from the journal, and don't worry too much about getting everything exactly right.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/09
| 724
| 3,011
|
<issue_start>username_0: For academic papers, is it frowned upon to include screenshots of graphics generated by some computer program? I am working on a paper and want to include data that I generated in R.<issue_comment>username_1: Screen shots are often not the best solution. Pretty much all packages that you can use to generate a figure have a way to export it in a format that can be embedded in latex or word (or something similar like libre-office).
A table should be written inside the document, e.g. as a Word or LaTeX table. Some programs allow you to generate a TeX or LaTeX version directly, others allow you to copy, paste into a table, and then edit the table. A screen-shot of a table would not be very readable and usually fall short of the requirements of the editor / school.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you literally mean a screenshot, then that is almost always a technically inferior solution for importing data into a paper, in multiple ways:
1. It’s a raster image and hence not scalable/magnifiable without the image becoming grainy. This reduces readability and [accessibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility).
2. It results in a larger file size (which can mean it takes longer to download and to open, scroll through etc) than if the data is incorporated into your document in some more thoughtful way. This again reduces accessibility a little bit, particularly for people with slow internet connections and/or older computers.
3. It will typically contain distracting graphic elements from the particular style/color scheme/user interface of the application that is presenting the data. These may not match the rest of your paper. This mixture of styles can make your paper annoying to read and its content more difficult to digest and appreciate.
So yes, it’s fair to say that screenshots are frowned upon. They are also unnecessary, since almost all technical software will offer multiple better ways to export your tables and diagrams.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: @JerBear: Let's be specific about the type of "academic paper." Examples:
1. Sociology: you are writing a paper about weight gain during the COVID pandemic. If you wish to use R to analyze the data you gathered and include the graphs generated by R as illustration, then it is absolutely fine to paste a .svg or .png image in your paper. **Additionally** (a) ensure that you include a citation to your data source(s) **AND** (b) name yourself as the source of the graphs.
>
>
> >
> > Example: *<NAME>. Data analyzed and graphical illustrations generated
> > using R (statistical computing software) Version 4.2.1, License GNU GPL v2,
> > <https://www.r-project.org/>*
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
2. Programming class in R: include your code as well as graphical output. Coding projects, in my experience, are submitted as packages that include folders for data, code, pictures, etc.
**Easy Answer: ask your teacher/ tutor / professor!**
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/09/10
| 1,459
| 6,109
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had this conversation with a friend recently (who's a tenure-track professor). He says although he's currently in a well-paid, highly desirable job, he is skeptical about his future because he's got to pass his tenure review. If he fails that, then the university effectively slaps a "not good enough" sign on top of his head that makes him unemployable both to other universities and in industry.
I suspect he's exaggerating a bit (since people who are denied tenure can't just disappear, they must be able to [find employment somewhere else](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2553/what-to-do-after-being-denied-tenure)), but still:
* How much damage is it to your career if you are denied tenure?
* How does one explain being denied tenure to a future employer? (Both in academia and industry)<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on why and it depends on where. Being denied tenure for misconduct can be a career killer if it is known, of course. But being denied tenure from a very highly rated place might have little effect except at similar places.
There are some places where it is very difficult to achieve tenure and a much smaller fraction of early career academics make the grade. But those are places where the standards are very high. I once heard a (perhaps apocryphal) story of a place that never tenured anyone, but thought of themselves a a sort of training ground for academics at other institution.
In general, standards for tenure vary and it should be obvious that it will be harder at those places that have a lot of distinguished researchers (and/or teachers). There are even liberal arts colleges in US with such high standards.
So, no, it isn't a block in itself, provided that you meet the standards at the place you are next hired. But you have to produce. There aren't many free rides.
---
I'll also note that it is possible to be denied tenure for "political" reasons in a dysfunctional department. That has its own problems going forward.
It is even possible to fail to earn tenure for financial reasons. A university suffering a funding crisis, perhaps.
---
As for how to explain it, you may not need to if your new target is appropriate and the place you didn't earn it was much higher ranked. You will need to explain things like your teaching philosophy and research arc, but that is true anyway.
But, if you don't, then people will make assumptions, which may be fine or not. If your publication and other academic record is appropriate for the new place then there shouldn't be much of an issue.
If you decide to explain it, avoid overly negative words (failed to earn..., denied...) for some more neutral terminology assuming that is appropriate. Perhaps you were told why: "needed more publications", say.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The premise of education is that it is possible to be at a point where you are not sufficiently accomplished to jump some hurdle at the present time, but you can train more and become more accomplished to jump that hurdle at a later time. One would certainly hope that academics of all people understand this, and do not write a person off for the future merely because they fail to clear some professional hurdle at a particular time. People generally get better at their work with more experience, so being denied tenure certainly *shouldn't* adversely affect your career, beyond the fact that it is the absence of a promotion at the present time.
Now, having said this, certain universities adopt an "up or out" policy\*\* with regard to tenure track positions and even sometimes in other contract positions. Moreover, there does seems to be an attitude amongst some senior academics that is quite impatient towards academic progression, and this augments formal "up or out" policies. For example, some academics on hiring committees seem to prefer younger applicants with less track-record over older academics with an existing track-record but who they perceive to be "behind" an expected schedule of progression, even if they're far more accomplished than younger academics. Having observed this kind of attitude, it is not unthinkable that being denied tenure might have an adverse effect beyond mere lack of a promotion. It would be a huge exaggeration to say that this makes a person unemployable, but it is possible that some senior academics might view them adversely, under this impatient viewpoint. I think this is quite a perverse way to run a profession, but it does seem that some senior academics adopt this kind of view. I agree with you that your friend's view is an exaggeration, but it's not completely baseless.
I'm not sure there is any need to "explain" being denied tenure. In academia people understand that tenure requirements are difficult, and they also require that academics follow a very specific pathway. The absence of meeting those requirements is not something mysterious that would require any explanation. Hiring committees in academia look directly at your publication record, grant record, and other direct measures, so they have the ability to directly assess the kinds of things that a tenure committee would consider. (Ironically, a hiring committee would probably only ask for an explanation of why you were denied tenure if your record is really *good* with respect to the measures usually used in tenure decisions, in which case they might worry that there is some unobservable reason for denial.) In most industrial jobs, most of the managers hiring people barely have a clue how academic tenure works (some don't even know that the concept exists) so an explanation is highly unlikely to be needed.
---
\*\* An "up or out" policy for a tenure-track position means that if the academic is not granted tenure at the end of the review period then their position ends. In many cases there is a limited grace period (e.g., one year) where the academic retains their job temorarily while they look for a new position. The "up or out" employment arrangement is common in some countries, such as the US.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/10
| 642
| 2,659
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am submitting a paper for graduate school application in philosophy. Among the items required, a writing sample. The sample relates directly to the field and to the potential supervisor's research area as well. The paper DOES reconstruct a philosophical problem for a particular philosopher, and it comes with something new for sure. However, the references I used and footnotes were about 57 and 70 respectively. The footnotes addressed a lot of issue and worked as a linkage to contemporary studies in the field. For the references, I couldn't help it.
Are those number going to be looked down on?<issue_comment>username_1: We can't judge it in a vacuum. If appropriate to the field and to the topic, then fine (normal). But you can also check similar and/or related papers to see if it is normal enough. Some of your many citations will give you a hint, I'd guess.
On the other hand, you use what you have and be prepared for any discussion.
A writing sample is also to judge how well you use the language. How clear you are. Are you concise when appropriate. I'd guess that is more important than citation counts. The review of your paper might be quite cursory, actually.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Agree completely with [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/188590/79875): it depends on the conventions of your field and the content of your paper. For example, 57 references might even be too few for a review paper. But regardless of the domain, I doubt having too many references would be too much of a problem.
The part that jumps out at me, though, is that you have 70 footnotes. In some old-fashioned papers, footnotes are used for citations (i.e., you will add a footnote saying "Jones 30" and then the bibliography provides a full citation for Jones's work). In this case, 70 footnotes might be okay. But it sounds like you are not doing this; rather, you have an enormous amount of footnotes which are making parenthetical comments and providing additional content.
Again, it is hard to judge in a vacuum; it might be that adding all these footnotes was a judicious way to present very complicated information. For example, I could imagine a linguistics paper where you use footnotes to provide translations or etymologies without disrupting the narrative. But, I think you should really reflect on whether using so many footnotes was the optimal choice for your paper. In particular, if you are expecting your reader to spend 18 pages bouncing between the main text and the footnotes, it is likely that your paper could benefit from being reorganized.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/11
| 402
| 1,739
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received the decision on a manuscript that I have submitted. The editor in chief decided to reject the paper stating that the reviewers are advising against the publication of the manuscript.
There were four reports, two suggesting minor revisions and publication of the paper. The other two reports had major concerns which are not related to the submitted manuscript, which lead me to believe that they were sent to us by mistake.
Are these kinds of mistakes possible by the editor?
How should I contact the editor in order to get some clarifications?<issue_comment>username_1: This kind of mistake should not happen with a properly-configured Editorial Management System, unless the reviewer(s) made the error by uploading the wrong review.
In any case if there is an error, the journal staff should be able to see it in the EMS logs, so you can email the journal. If this email address is not available on the website or from the EMS, you could try replying to the decision letter email.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Are these kinds of mistakes possible by the editor?
>
>
>
Of course such mistakes can happen, editors and all other people involved are actually human.
>
> How should I contact the editor in order to get some clarifications?
>
>
>
Just write a polite enquiry to the editor, either as a reply to the decision e-mail or via the submission portal. Explain briefly that you think two of the reviewer reports were linked to your submission by mistake, and ask the editor to reconsider the decision, if appropriate. Do not be afraid of editors, in my experience they are reasonable people who are open to reasonable requests like yours.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/11
| 400
| 1,669
|
<issue_start>username_0: Our paper recently got a "major revision", with comments from three reviewers. Two of them were actually ok, just answers for a few questions and rephrasing of some parts. The third reviewer showed harsh prejudice about our work and their comments were are all marked with and exclamation mark ("!").
I want to know if at the end two reviewers accept and one does not, what will be the editor's decision, specifically for open access journals?<issue_comment>username_1: You can't predict what the result of your paper's peer review process will be. Anything can happen, because it's possible the reviewers will say accept and the editor rejects anyway, or the reviewers will say reject but the editor accepts anyway.
See questions:
[Why does editor reject when reviewers recommend acceptance?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11362/why-does-editor-reject-when-reviewers-recommend-acceptance)
[Why do editors sometimes accept a paper even if a reviewer recommends rejection?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32397/why-do-editors-sometimes-accept-a-paper-even-if-a-reviewer-recommends-rejection)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your job now is to use the reviews to make the paper better.
Carefully read and respond to all the comments. Pay particular attention to what you claim is a harsh reviewer. Set aside your perception of the tone and deal with the substance. When they are right, make the change. When you think they are wrong, explain why you reject that particular suggestion.
Then the editor will do what they decide. That is their decision, not merely a tally of the reviewers' votes.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/11
| 2,144
| 9,079
|
<issue_start>username_0: Over the course of my PhD, I've had the pleasure of being a TA for many courses under many different profs, all were great experiences. I learned a lot, did a lot of good work with the other TAs and helped the students a ton.
Currently however, the professor I am a TA for is an absolute menace to deal with, especially over email. He will give me vague instructions on what to do. If I do what I think he wants, he will rudely ask if I ever bothered to read his emails. If I ask him for clarification, he also rudely asks if I bothered to read his emails (even though the emails have nothing to do with my question). If I say nothing, then he tells me I am not responsive and need to communicate more and ask more questions if I'm confused. At one point, I asked him about a problem that students had with an assignment, and he told me not to bother with anything anymore and that he would just do everything himself (implying that my question had annoyed him to the point of giving up on me trying to help him as his TA). He just seems impossible to work with. No matter what I do, he will complain about something.
He has a very bad review on RateMyProf, and from what I heard from his former PhD students, he was a nightmare and they were treading on thin ice because they didn't want to lose funding. Fortunately this TA position is only a semester long, and even if he ends up giving me poor feedback, I just want to be able to tell myself I did my best at doing my job, even if he does not think so. So I'd like to ask for general advice on dealing with such people, especially when they're professors.<issue_comment>username_1: Some things you can change and some you can't. From your description it seems that this has been going on for a long time. The administration would therefore likely know of it and has decided to live with it. Complaining to authority will probably get you nowhere, if a bit of sympathy. A top researcher, for example, might be "forgiven" for lots of transgressions.
I'll suggest, sadly, that you probably need to "grin and bear it", keeping a low profile if possible.
If it were a recent phenomenon, I'd suggest that the professor is going through a hard period and acting badly as a result, as many do.
For the specific email issue, you might consider replying to every email from them immediately, so it is clear that you have read their mail. For the unhelpful-ness issue you might consider getting advice from a trusted faculty member with knowledge of the course when you need advice about responding to students. I had a helpful advisor, with no such issues, but I also had another mentor who was responsive to questions as well as a good model for teaching.
Keep your head down if possible. Don't give the person a "reason" to attack you in any way. Luckily it is a short term situation. Purgatory, perhaps, but not hell.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: @username_1 's answer covers the ground.
Here's one small step you might consider. When you get an email from the professor about some issue or you are about to embark on a task they might want done differently, write them immediately saying "[...] is what I think you want me to do, so I will go ahead with it unless I hear from you with other instructions".
This is an adaptation of what I taught my software engineering students to do when faced with a possible ambiguity in requirements that was not serious enough to demand immediate clarification from a client. In that context it improves work flow while minimizing distraction. In yours it's more the importance of creating a record.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Two strategies are possible here, as I see it, depending on your personality and personal goals.
1. Continue with the bullying professor, and avoid them at all cost after the term. That way you minimize any potential backlash.
2. Apply standard tactics to deal with bullies at work. There is a risk that the professor is mad. But it is more reasonable to assume the bullying professor thrives on their victims being silent. In that case, simply be firm, assertive, and slightly combative, yet still polite and to the point (no personal insults, accusations).
If they write you: "you should be more responsive". Answer back, assertively that you don't agree: "Dear professor X, I do not believe I have been non-responsive. On the contrary, I have shared with you on Y my concerns regarding, but you have not provided clear enough guidance, in a timely manner. ". Etc.
Bullies, are not used to being confronted. With some high chance they back off.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Depending on the structure of your department, *this professor is probably not your boss.* You probably report to the Graduate Director in your department, or someone in a similar position. This is worth keeping in mind!
Moreover, bullies are usually known to be bullies. All too often, there is usually no way to dismiss them or make them change. If most people in the department are nice, then they probably don't hold your bully in high regard. (*Probably* -- I can't say for certain!) If so, then this means that he might not have a lot of actual power.
In addition to the other suggestions, I'd recommend doing two things:
* Ask to speak to the graduate director (if you trust him or her). Explain the situation and ask for their advice. You might get some good advice specific to the situation -- and you also cover for yourself if your bully later tries to complain about you.
* You say that "I just want to be able to tell myself I did my best at doing my job", which is admirable. From what you say about your professor, I'd say that he is incompetent to recognize or evaluate good teaching. So, although you'll want to minimize any damage there, I'd focus on your students, and remember that it is to them and not to your professor that you are accountable. Do right by them, and you will have done a good job.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: This professor is a bully and a [redacted], and luckily your interaction with him will be over relatively soon. Your focus should be on getting there with minimal repercussions to yourself and, where possible, others. I recommend you change your perspective on your TA position to get the best out of it nevertheless.
* **There is no appeasing people like him.** There is no magic combination of words, email frequency and content that will result in him interacting pleasantly with you (or with anyone else, it seems). Stop seeing him as an ally (and trying to extract something useful from him: blood from a stone, etc.), and start seeing him as what he is: an obstacle to your goal.
* **Focus on helping the course students as your goal.** Ideally your professor should be on your side in this, but clearly not. What do your students need? In some cases it's someone to act as buffer/intermediary with the professor, in which case it may be necessary for you to contact him and bear the rude and unhelpful responses; even here, write the queries with your goal in mind, ideally with a very simple answer (e.g. "clarify whether exercise 3 is intended to be solved using technique A or B", not "help me make students understand the applicability of A and B techniques"). But in many other cases, the professor may not really be any help anyway - find the answer on your own, perhaps identifying other authoritative people or peers with the relevant experience, then (if you want) send him an email with your intentions (as per [username_2's quite correct answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/188618/155556)) as a CYA. Don't seek your professor's approval but your students' success.
* **Learn from the experience.** This is quite different from your other TAing jobs (which is good!) and therefore you are finding your past experiences are not useful here. Observe this person, how he interacts with others (he may be quite different with "underlings" like you and PhD students, compared to "peers") and learn to spot the signs - it will be useful in the future when you meet others like him. There's plenty of [redacted] out there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Others have suggested that the problem is really with your professor and they may very well be correct.
However, since you mentioned emails several time in your post: I think it is worth pointing out that (from my experience as a software developer) misunderstandings are much more likely to arise and much harder to clear up when communicating in writing only, rather than meeting **in person** from time to time. Where I work, fifteen minutes of talking to the difficult co-worker from another department can easily save several hours of semi-angry writing back and forth. Even just meeting up from time to time and casually asking what is new already can improve communication a lot.
So while your professor may indeed be the main problem here, communicating only via email rather than in person (at least from time to time) can also be quite problematic.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/11
| 825
| 3,597
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a junior researcher and physician at a German university hospital. I am part of a funding program with regular workshops on grant applications, scientific writing, etc.
More recently, we discussed grant applications at the workshops. All of us had to hand in a sample application or an application we recently sent. When discussing my application, the course instructor / lecturer said the following things (translated from German):
>
> Your application is good but very factual based. It is not very creative. A major point of concern is your top 10 publication list. The majority of your publications is from a single publisher - which could be interpreted as a lack of diversity.
>
>
>
Do you agree on this? I checked my top 10 list, which is a list of my own most relevant publications for the grant application, and it included: 3 publications in Springer, 2 in BMC and 5 in MDPI journals. Usually, my boss would decide where to submit. Should I be concerned? As we are in Germany, most publications in Springer and BMC are made open access free of charge for us by Project DEAL, and I simply do not have the money for some Elsevier / Taylor & Francis open access journals etc...<issue_comment>username_1: It may be that the concern was not so much that half the publications come from a particular publisher, but the specific publisher involved. There are some people who do not have a great opinion of MDPI journals - see the fourth paragraph of their wikipedia article.
I do not know enough about MDPI to be able to speculate as to the validity of such an opinion.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Frankly, the comment seems bizarre. But since it seems to be just advice on writing grants, without a supervisory component, you can safely ignore it.
You may have limited influence over where those papers were published, and possibly no control, given that your PI decides. It would be a mistake to write with the goal of maximizing the number of publishers cited rather than the appropriate papers no matter where they appear (if reputable).
The instructor may believe (wrongly IMO) that papers get prestige or validity from the journal they are published in, rather than the other way about. Journals have prestige because they publish high quality papers. If they publish junk, they lose prestige.
Had they criticized a particular journal for lack of quality, it would make some sense, but "more is better" seems, to repeat, bizarre.
I doubt that people evaluating a grant proposal have the "number of journals cited" as a measure of quality, though some journals are recognized to be low quality.
---
Edited to add that some MDPI journals are controversial as noted by other writers here, and MDPI itself has been criticized as a publisher.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Your course instructor probably reiterates something she was taught herself by somebody else. In fact, I have heard the recommendation to avoid publishing too large a fraction of one's publications in the same journal before, uttered by different people. This recommendation was not focussed on the publisher, though, but on the journal. So yes, there is a chance that a proposal you write is assessed by somebody who concurs with your course instructor, and you may want to take this into account for future manuscript submissions.
The reasoning behind this was usually to avoid the impression that there is some personal connection to a specific journal or editor which improves the chances that a manuscript is accepted for publication there.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/11
| 370
| 1,649
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work at a teaching-oriented college, where no postgraduate programs exist, and no research assistants hired. I have a research idea, but due to teaching load, I am thinking about hiring a research assistant online (zoom meetings) to do some of the programming/coding and data analysis/visualization under my instructions. I plan to pay this research assistant (of course it is a part-time job) and add him/her as a co-author. Do you think this is academically acceptable? Are there any downsides in doing such a thing?
Note: in case someone suggests to find a motivated undergrad student to help, I don't have time to teach them the advanced programming I require in my work, so I will be looking for someone who is already expert in programming and is interested to work with me on my idea.<issue_comment>username_1: I think it is academically acceptable. You should ask your chair.
That said, good professional part time programming is expensive. Supervising that kind of help will be time consuming. Making sure your requirements are right and correctly understood and testing the results will be your responsibility. Teaching a motivated undergraduate who was already a good programmer (such folks exist at many places) might in fact be easier and more rewarding for all concerned.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This sounds perfectly fine. You have an idea, and want to employ someone to help you. As long as you go through the correct HR procedures to write a job description and hire someone, and follow academic protocols around assigning authorship, then it looks good to me.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/11
| 490
| 1,790
|
<issue_start>username_0: Different countries have different ways of giving a salary range, in some countries I have noticed that the job posting explicitly says "estimated net salary". Now I am wondering about academic jobs in Norway, it is never specified in job postings so there must be a social norm I guess.
For example
<https://www.jobbnorge.no/en/available-jobs/job/231207/coordinator-of-community-sampling-for-the-biodiversity-genomics-europe-bge-project>
According to some online tax calculator website, a gross salary of 650k NOK per year is about 475k net/year. All the post-docs I have seen are around 500k-600k per year but none of them specify if net or gross. The tax rate seems to be around 30%, are these calculation in a good estimate?<issue_comment>username_1: How much taxes you pay usually depends on individual factors (that you do not have to share), therefore the advertised salary is in general gross.
Gross salary depends as well on individual factors, but with respect to individual factors that you *do* have to share at the interview.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know about Norway in general, but all the adds I have seen from UiO give the gross salary. In addition to online tax calculators (they're usually accurate, you would expect to pay ~25-30% tax with a PhD/postdoc salary), depending on your situation you might also be able to enroll in the PAYE scheme for your first year in Norway (25% flat rate): <https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/foreign/are-you-intending-to-work-in-norway/tax-deduction-cards/paye/>
This most likely depends on specific department and funding source, but from what I've seen at UiO a postdoc typically earns 32-35.000 NOK a month, net. This seems to be in agreement with the add you linked.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/11
| 802
| 3,277
|
<issue_start>username_0: Following [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188578/how-much-does-being-denied-tenure-damage-your-career) it is natural to ask a basic question:
*Assuming a tenure-track faculty member in the US or Canada was denied tenure after their case has been submitted to the University. Is this information public or confidential*? *Both in practice, and formally speaking.*
Edit: to clarify my question: I am interested to know whether this information is *formally* confidential. I.e., panel members are not allowed to discuss it with colleagues, just as they are not allowed to discuss paper rejections with colleagues.<issue_comment>username_1: Generally speaking, personnel matters would be confidential, and that includes tenure denial.
However, if someone is familiar with a university, they would know that an assistant professor was hired on date X, 90% of assistant professors submit their tenure application by customary date Y, and a decision normally comes on date Z. If date Z passes and the assistant professor's tenure is not announced, then there is 90% certainty tenure was denied.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I’m not sure what you mean by “public”. The decision is technically confidential but basically nearly every person in the department will soon learn of the decision since someone is leaving. The Chair or Head will promptly know as there are now courses to be reassigned or removed from the timetable. If the person had a research group then the students have to be reassigned.
Now I don’t think the decision is announced by the institution no more than announcement are made when someone leaves (so in this sense it is not public), but such a decision rarely remains confidential for very long.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: At my big state R1 university, the whole tenured faculty will be aware of a committee recommendation against tenure, and/or have actually voted on the issue.
In some cases, the untenured person is "counseled out", so the issue never comes to a vote. *This* part of the process is less sunlit, since "private consensus" that the person's tenure vote would fail (in the dept) is potentially very subjective/volatile.
(I have indeed seen more than one occasion in which a senior faculty person down-talked a person who'd been approved by the committee... effectively "black-balling" the person, since our dept insists on a substantial super-majority to approve tenure. That event was not made public, etc. On at least one occasion, a grievance was filed, and (I know because I testified...) the higher-ups' conclusion was that there was a "procedural problem", but no change in the conclusion. On another occasion, a senior faculty person apparently exercised inappropriate influence in the (otherwise rubber-stamping departments' recommendations) "Dean's committee"... the Dean recognized that something was fishy, and, by chance, I did personally go to talk to the Dean about the weird outcome, ... so in *that* case the craziness was avoided. But, to respond to the literal question, there was not even a *private*, much less *public* discussion of the process or the craziness.)
So: it's effectively private, but faculty have not signed NDAs...
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/12
| 731
| 3,286
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have already completed my undergraduate and masters studies in continental Europe (engineering/natural sciences, very applied field) and am currently applying for PhD positions starting autumn 2023.
Most of the research projects I am interested are advertised as being funded by private partners. As far as I am concerned one is still expected to pay fees for the PhD despite working on developing technology for these parties. I find this very odd first of all, this is very different to continental Europe, where even master thesis students are commonly paid by the industry partner benefiting from the intellectual property.
I am still interested in applying at two UK universities though as I would find this academically interesting. I have seen there is some competitive funding schemes one can apply to (scholarships by the university), also covering the horrendous study fees for EU students. However, for these one needs to apply together with the potential supervisor.
So I am wondering whether it is appropriate when writing the potential supervisor to mention straight away that one is only interested in the position if an application for funding is successful? I am also wondering how this will be seen by the academic and whether this is uncommon. Taking debt to work on these projects is not an option for me, given offers at other locations where one receives a full salary.<issue_comment>username_1: I think it is reasonable to show commitment, i.e. you will do your best to win the scolarship, as well as leaving the door open with the advisor to co-operate to obtain alternative fundings.
You should ask yourself: do I need the fundings to work with this advisor or do I need this advisor to get the fundings?
Keep in mind that none of the questions is intrinsically right or wrong, but you should aim at very different PhDs advisors depending on your choice: if you have a great idea to develop independently, you need the advisor to get the fundings (*any* advisor, actually, to be more precise), if you like the group and the problem tackled by potential advisor X, you need the fundings to work with the advisor (*any* fundings, actually, to be more precise, it may be that the advisor and you are able to put altogether a patchwork of funds ... ).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: As an academic at a UK university in my experience it would be more unusual to have someone contact me regarding a PhD position who *didn't* need funding. But I think it's always good to be clear about this in the first contact email.
However, to differentiate yourself from others who are also seeking a funded position it would be great to have researched scholarships which you believe you would qualify for and identify these in your email. This would certainly get my attention. Also make sure to make it clear why the person you are contacting is the right supervisor for you. For example, by noting how their recent research (read some of their papers) is applicable to what you want to study.
There can sometimes be internal funding opportunities available which aren't advertised (yet) that a supervisor could access for the right student. So making a good impression in your contact email is important.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/12
| 653
| 2,865
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received a decision letter with a rejection. The letter contained two reports recommending publication and two reports, with negative comments, which have nothing to do with the manuscript, and possibly belonging to another manuscript and were submitted to me by mistake.
I have contacted the Editor in Chief about it two days ago, explaining the situation and requesting further explanation.
I'm afraid that if I submit to another journal, I may get a response from the editor in chief and miss the chance of the paper getting published.
So, how long should I wait before submitting the paper to another journal?<issue_comment>username_1: Since you received a clear rejection, you can submit elsewhere immediately. You don't need to wait. If you want to argue with them that the rejection may have been a mistake, then you should wait until that is resolved.
If you didn't get a rejection, but an offer to resubmit, or that is the resolution of any continued discussion, then before you submit to another journal, you first (first!) have to withdraw it from the current journal. You can do that with an email, which, after being sent, lets you submit elsewhere immediately. You don't really need to wait for a reply, since you are in control of your own copyrightable material. It is courteous to wait, but not essential.
But submitting to another journal while still under consideration by the first is a protocol violation (whatever that means), and perhaps an ethical one.
But your case seems clear that you can submit where and when you choose. The paper is yours.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Phone call the company **during office hours**[1], try to talk in person with the editor. An email is way too cumbersome, and slow, for such an urgent matter.
You clearly have all the rights to question the editor.
[1] your case is urgent, among the urgent things to be done by the editor in their duties as an editor. Do not expect answer to your email during the night/weekend/holidays, but expect an answer to phone call performed during office hours.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: From your description, there is a clear error and contacting the editor-in-chief is the right thing and it sounds like you should have a reasonable chance at having the decision reversed. The question is how to long to wait for a response.
Now, people may be on vacation. People may be sick. People have to grade exams and homework. They may have a family emergency. So give people a reasonable chance to reply before you walk away. Most of the time, people respond within 2-3 weeks even if they are on vacation for some time, so that seems to be a reasonable time frame to me. You worrying about not getting a response after two days (which, on top of that, were weekend days!) seems entirely too quick to me.
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/09/12
| 1,000
| 4,029
|
<issue_start>username_0: My initial goal 5 years ago was to do an applied math PhD, but I had to find a job to pay off my loans. I've been working in data science for a couple years. I'm now planning to apply again.
**1. Different Academic background**
My academic background is in France, but I'm now living in the USA where I'd like to do my PhD. The French system is very different from the American one - for instance the name of your school mattering much more than grades, different grading system, very few interactions with the faculty. Almost all the people I've seen from France that have gone to study in the US have done so from specific institutions (engineer schools mostly) that have close ties with American academia and adapt to their requirements. I graduated from a top French institution - but which has few ties to the US.
**2. Difficulty leveraging it in application**
*Grades and recommendations*
As such, most of the elements on the applications look to me quite very foreign - recommendation letters, GPAs etc... Simply translating my French grades to GPA gives me quite mediocre grades in the American system.
*Degree name*
My undergrad (French prépa) was very math heavy and gave me solid foundations. Yet I don't have a degree for this, and going into business school after simply gave me a "business degree".
**Recap**
To recap, coming from a system which is very different and makes it quite difficult to compete in a selective environment, especially if I'm aiming at a top school.
How could I best apply for a top math PhD program given the above constraints ? If I apply as is, I feel my skills wouldn't be reflected in the application.
Thanks for your input, a bit lost as to how best to approach this<issue_comment>username_1: The way to proceed it to apply and present the best application you can. It is fine to aim for top schools, but unwise to apply to *only* top schools. I'd guess that any [R1 university](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_universities_in_the_United_States) in the US would serve you well, provided they have a few faculty in a subfield of interest to you. So, make a broad, not a narrow search for an institution, including some top schools, but not restricting your search to those.
Don't worry too much about your "GPA" as your translation may not be valid. R1 universities will probably do the translation from French style grades and will know about the different education and grading systems. In some places, low "numbers" translate to quite high qualification.
Investigate the GRE and decide if taking it would be an advantage or not. Look at sample tests to get a sense of it, for example. Not everyone requires it and not everyone will accept or evaluate it, but it could, potentially, be a boost if you do well.
It will be important, however, to get good letters of recommendation from people who know your work and can attest to your likelihood of success. You may need to help writers understand the importance of them.
You will also need a good Statement of Purpose that expresses your goals for study and beyond. It will also serve, some places, as a writing sample.
See [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/176908/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-country-x/176909#176909) for how the admissions process works in the US.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, I myself do understand, to some degree, the differences in the systems... :)
I think the main point for most places in the U.S. (which is why letters of recommendation have come to play a large role) is not so much *past* accomplishments, but *future* *potential*. Yes, of course, past accomplishment is a positive indicator... but... and this is potentially important, in my experience... grad school is different from undergrad (especially in the U.S., where there's a breadth requirement in undergrad).
So, operationally, the point would be to explain (through all means possible) your *future* potential.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/12
| 1,982
| 8,640
|
<issue_start>username_0: In reviewing a paper in analysis (mathematics), I provided a detailed review report that I feel was not too harsh (at least well within the realm of reasonable).
Today, the authors came back with a revision that, in my opinion, failed to address all the major criticisms I raised and ignored most of my suggestions. They included a detailed letter that contains item-by-item response to my points. Most of the responses are along the line of
>
> We acknowledge the point raised by this reviewer, but we decide to not address it at all in this revision.
>
>
>
(I'm paraphrasing, of course. But that's the gist) There is no rebuttal nor any change. As a reviewer, it seems pointless to repeat the same points again. It will just be a waste of time for everyone.
How should a reviewer respond in this situation? Will it be reasonable to decline review invitation?
---
Note: *Of course, I'm not assuming I, the reviewer, am 100% correct in every point. But the correctness is not the main issue here.*<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, they haven't ignored your remarks, but have decided not to address them. There are reasons both for why this might be reasonable and why not. One possible reason is that they believe that the suggested changes are beyond the scope of this paper as they envision it. They remain the authors.
But if you think the paper is flawed without the changes you can say that in the new report. If you think it is fatally flawed you can recommend rejection. Any of that is appropriate. And, yes, you can decline to review again.
It will be up to the editor to make decisions here. The editor probably has other reports and will need to eventually come to a decision with available advice.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> a detailed review report that I feel was not too harsh
>
>
>
it sounds like the cost-benefit of addressing the points you raised was negligible: if the report was not harsh, probably the authors read it as "*the reviewer is suggesting nice things to be addressed, if only we had infinite time and resources ...*"
Similar to the rain: you can walk and ignore it if it not too harsh, just addressing it by "*I will get a bit wet, but I keep on walking*" ... you would act differently if it was a harsh thunderstorm.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I advise against declining the review. Good reviews are hard to get and cost a lot of time and effort. The editor wants to know what you specifically think of the revision. You can tell the editor what you think with very little effort. A new reviewer would have to start from scratch.
I would also focus more on your interaction with the editor rather than authors, at this point.
Similar to username_2, I would think about how these points impact your final assessment of the paper. While it's frustrating if authors don't take constructive feedback, ultimately the decision will be whether to accept and what revisions to require. And the editor is relying on you to make recommendations. So if you think the paper is fatally flawed without these fixes, you can say that. Or if you think the paper is publishable but weak, or unpublishable.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I had a very similar situation recently. I had, in my review, recommended including some additional experimental comparison to competing approaches, and questioned how one of the datasets was used in a different experiment. The editor, in summarising the reviews to the authors, had also recommended strengthening the experimental section by including, in some form, the comparisons I have suggested.
The paper came back after revision virtually unchanged, with the rebuttal stating that they do not think an exhaustive comparison to other approaches is needed, and providing some reasoning for using a dataset in a non-standard way.
**I reviewed the paper as it was at that point, assuming no further changes will be made.** This meant that I did not give the same recommendations twice (include X, change Y), but rather pointed out to the flaws in the paper caused by omitting X and Y, explained how I disagreed with the few justifications provided by the authors in the rebuttal, and explained why I think the paper is not fit for publication with these gaps. I concluded by recommending rejection.
I also sent a private response to the editor (as the system allowed it), to clarify that I have not re-made any previous suggestion that was explicitly refused by the authors, and am instead offering a review of the paper as-it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Many journals explicitly require point-by-point responses nowadays.
I recommend to check whether the journal is question is one of them.
If yes, it might even be that this is the only reason these responses were included at all – and thus are just a disrespectful and annoying way to cheat around this policy.
In particular if this applies but also otherwise, it may help to treat your situation very similar (but not identical) to the manuscript’s authors ignoring your comments completely, i.e., no change or reply.
For the practical purpose of furthering a decision on the manuscript, this is no different:
Nothing was improved and no arguments were provided.
There are some nuances in politeness and ascertaining that your points were not accidentally missed, but those should not affect your recommendation anyway.
This point of view makes your decision clearer.
If the authors had completely ignored every point in question, would …:
* … you think that the editor wasted your time by sending you such a non-response?
If yes, decline the review with this argument.
Also consider not reviewing for the journal/editor altogether for some time.
Here you have to take into account how obvious it is for the editor that the authors non-replied to many points.
For an extreme example, I once had similar non-responses as a reviewer, but they were disguised by a page (!) of pointless waffling, such as a summary of the manuscript.
I recommended to reject (and the editor agreed), but I don’t hold it against the editor that they didn’t spot this.
* … reviewing whatever changes there are in the manuscript be a waste of your time?
This applies for example if you would recommend to reject anyway, because a critical point of yours wasn’t addressed.
If yes, decline to review with this argument, but offer to review the revision and response once it is done properly (if the editor would give the authors the chance).
Mind that this is not very different from a very negative review.
The main difference is that you do not bother to look at whatever changes were made.
* … you feel neither of the above: Review as it is, and state that all your previous criticism still applies and you do not consider it addressed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I see two options here:
* Briefly review the paper once more, noting in a clear way that the author did not fix most of the suggestions. Without giving a clear recommendation to accept or reject.
* Briefly review the paper again, but indicate in a clear way that **you recommend rejecting the paper** due to it being not up to publication standard in the current state.
In general, I would lean towards the second option, because authors completely rejecting each and every suggestion of the review without any explanation on the reason they rejected it cannot be considered in general as participating in the peer review process in good faith. If you reject the majority of comments given, then you'd better explain what went wrong (if only to pay respect to the reviewer).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: You’re overthinking this. There is no logical (as opposed to emotional) reason to decline the review, and given that you undertook to serve as the reviewer for the paper, it would be a bit irresponsible to refuse to see the process to the end.
If you think the paper should not be published in its present form, recommend rejection, and explain why. That’s all that is required of you after the detailed feedback you’ve provided. Your job is not to argue with authors, nor to write their papers for them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: It makes no sense to ignore the recommendations of a review, but then initiate another round of review to the same reviewer.
Is it not possible to communicate something along the following lines?
>
> I acknowledge your decision not to act on the recommendations in my last review. My previous review round was thorough and I have no new recommendations. I wish you the best of luck with the paper!
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/13
| 1,025
| 4,302
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a post-doctoral researcher in social sciences and work on several topics that may not only be interested to the discipline itself but also to a wider academic audience, I suppose (hopefully).
Besides trying to publish in the disciplinary journals, I am also wondering whether it makes sense to publish in academic journals that have a broader scope (such as [PLOS One](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/) or [EPJ Data Science](https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/about)).
Is it worth trying to reach 'other audiences' or is it better to speak to your 'direct' peers by publishing only in social sciences journals? And does it make sense career-wise to publish as widely as possible or is it rather seen as to fuzzy and lacking focus on contributing to the own academic field (i.a. people in hiring committees may not know these interdiscplinary journals and can't assess whether this a good academic achievement or not)?
Any recommendations or personal experience on this are very welcome.
Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: From my personal experience, there are pros and cons. We published several articles in such journals (megajournals including PlosOne, SageOpen, Heliyon) and frequently dealt with long (very long!) peer review times. Such journals often have difficulties to find an academic editor for submissions and this may delay your publication. I understand that it is my subjective experience and you should not take it for granted. Just another point to consider in terms of your question. I recommend field-specific journals.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Choosing a journal is all about trade-offs in audience vs. effort. Who do you want to talk to, and what type of effort do you want to put in so that you can do so?
Personally, I publish in a mix of field-specific journals and broad interdisciplinary journals. In my experience, the review times are pretty similar (a couple months) for interdisciplinary journals and most field-specific journals. Some field-specific journals, however, can be far slower, depending on field and journal.
In my own case, I find it advantageous to publish in the broad interdisciplinary journals in two main cases:
1. When the research doesn't fit cleanly into a particular disciplinary "stovepipe", I prefer to put it where categories don't matter so much, rather than try to fit it onto a field-specific journal's [Procrustean bed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes).
2. When I'm reporting on something that doesn't make a "pretty" story, like work on scientific infrastructure or a report about a study that was only partially successful, I prefer not to try to puff up "novelty" or "impact", but just go to somewhere like PLoS ONE that explicitly rules those out and just focuses on validity.
One still must, of course, judge the respectability of the publications. Places like PLoS ONE are fine, but publishing in predatory journals is poison. Likewise, you probably have work that is best presented to people in your field in a field-specific journal: if you don't, why is it your field?
Note, of course, that there is likely to be a great deal of field-specific variation, even down to specific sub-disciplines within a field. I'm coming from a world of computer science, engineering, and biology, and cannot say what social scientists in your specific sub-discipline may believe.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: From my personal experience publishing in a journal outside my main field as well as working as a copy editor for a journal in an affiliated, but still external field, I will say that some of the more common problems I've encountered include an unfamiliarity with conventions in one field from another, ranging from the types of citation formats used, to terminology that is well known in one field, but which needs greater explanation in another. In other words, it can be a lot of work for a writer to publish in a field outside of their main one due to being unfamiliar with the conventions of the other; conversely, it can be a lot of work for the editorial staff on the other end. This is not to say that you should not publish outside your field, just that it might be more time and labor on your end. Best of luck in all your endeavors!
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/13
| 567
| 1,956
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have seen many authors cite in scientific research papers as follows:
>
> First\_author's\_last\_name et al.[10]
> Another\_first\_author's\_last\_name et al. [15]
>
>
>
I have also seen some papers refer to popular methods created by some authors as follows:
>
> In 2006, CravingGold [10] was created by some students from Havard under the tutelage of ...
>
>
>
Here, CravingGold is a famous method everyone in that domain is aware of.
What is the correct way of citation if I want to use *et al.* and also mention the popular method the authors created? For example,
>
> First\_author's\_last\_name et al. [10] proposed a method based on hyperplane called CravingGold
>
>
>
or do I say:
>
> First\_author's\_last\_name et al. proposed a method based on hyperplane called CravingGold [10]
>
>
>
or is it correct to even say:
>
> First\_author's\_last\_name et al. [10] proposed a method based on hyperplane called CravingGold [10]
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Either of your first two options would be fine. I personally prefer to put the citation immediately after the authors' names as in your first option, but I have seen both and neither is uncommon.
If I saw something like the third option I would assume the double citation was unintentional. You're only mentioning it once so it should only be cited once.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You can find the IEEE style guide at
<https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/conferences/style_references_manual.pdf>
Under Referencing, it says:
*NOTE: Use et al. when three or more names are given.*
In the examples given, there are no first names. It also says that you should treat references as footnotes or nouns.
Adding first names can be useful, since some places have only very few last name. I personally hate it if references are given by number only as it forces me to reread the Reference section.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/13
| 1,590
| 6,625
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently finishing up my doctorate in Europe and will start a post-doc next year. My understanding is that a lot of people end up doing post-doc after post-doc (easily till around their 40s), without ever getting a permanent contract at a university.
My question is: What are the options are for someone who leaves "academia" after one or some post-docs, and is age is a factor?
This is related to [What post PhD path alternatives are there?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17253/what-post-phd-path-alternatives-are-there), however I would like more of a focus on the extent to which age is a factor.
I have often heard that if one is beyond a certain age, then it is difficult to convince someone in the "industry" to hire you. The idea being something like "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Any personal experience and statistical studies on this question are welcome!<issue_comment>username_1: In principle, for most employers, age should not matter. That's because age discrimination is usually frowned upon and many employers want to say that they don't discriminate for that reason. [Example](https://legal.linkedin.com/content/dam/legal/Equal-Employment-Opportunity-Policy-Statement_10_2017_Candidate.pdf).
>
> Integrity is a core part of our culture, and LinkedIn is committed to equal employment opportunity for all qualified individuals - regardless of race, color, religion, creed, gender, national origin, **age**, disability, veteran status, marital status, pregnancy, sex, gender expression or identity, sexual orientation,
> citizenship, or any other legally protected class. This commitment applies across all of our employment policies and practices, from recruiting and hiring to training and career development.
>
>
>
However, if you seek such a career move, there'll be questions you need to answer:
* Why are you seeking a career change?
* What can you actually do?
The first should be straightforward to answer. The second is not so simple. Considering the age, you are probably also seeking a more senior role (or at least you want to be paid more). That means you are competing against other people who have had several years of experience in whatever position you're applying for. Why should they hire you? Can you demonstrate that your experience in academia allows you to exceed what your competitors offer? "I can learn it quickly" might be true, but it's also not sufficient.
Example: say you're interested in data science, which is certainly something that many physics PhDs go on to do. Here's an example of a [job advertisement](https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3108085345/) in that domain (nothing special about this advertisement, it's simply the first one that popped up when I did a search). Note the requirements:
>
> Requirements:
>
>
> * 6-8 years of experience in data science; preferably in B2B industry
> * Excellent modelling experience including but not limited to deep learning and natural language processing
> * Familiar in handling time series data, machine learning framework and in-depth understanding of data processing and feature engineering techniques
> * Strong knowledge in Python and SQL
> * Excellent communications and interpersonal skills
> * Ability to interact positively and professionally at all levels
>
>
>
As a postdoc you definitely do not have experience in the B2B industry, immediately putting you at a disadvantage. The advertisement also asks for 6-8 years of experience as a data scientist, which some of your competitors definitely will have. You might have it too, if you've been working on data science projects in physics for 6-8 years (have you?). If you haven't, then it becomes very difficult for you to get this job.
If you do have the 6-8 years experience, then there's the next hurdle. The advertisement asks for experience in deep learning and natural language processing. Did your data science projects include these topics? I can see deep learning, but NLP seems rather unlikely in physics. Again, that puts you at a disadvantage. Even if you can learn it quickly, you don't have any examples of delivered projects you can cite at an interview.
As you can see, it's not easy to get a job in data science, but it's not because you're old. It's because you probably don't have the experience that your competitors do. It's not dissimilar to how it's hard to get a job in particle physics when your entire physics career has been in condensed matter physics.
Having said that, there will be jobs where the ability to "do physics" is a key part, and for those jobs your physics PhD will be squarely relevant. Offhand, the first one that comes to mind is teaching, both as a school teacher or as a private tutor.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I realize that this might not qualify as a literal answer, but just some career advice from someone who has completed theirs.
Don't give up if you *really* want a career in academia.
Times are hard now for entry into permanent positions, hence the prevalence of postdocs. If you get a post doc, don't consider it as a respite, but as an opportunity. Use the postdoc to do three things.
First, don't give up your search for a permanent position. Don't wait until near the end to start applying.
Second, use the postdoc for what it is intended to do: improve your CV by publishing. Grant writing is also possible.
Third, develop collaborative relationships, not only for research but for for general career advancement. Try to attend good conferences. Use the time there to meet people with common interests and explore collaborations. Those people can help you in your search for a permanent position in many ways.
Not quite on the same scale, but continuously reevaluate your goals. That isn't the same as giving them up, but rethinking them is good as you learn more from your current academic situation. In the US, there are a lot of good (really good) colleges and universities that aren't primarily research institutions. Teaching is more important, though usually not *all* important. And a tenurable/tenured position at a good liberal arts college will still give you opportunities for research, especially if you have developed those collaborative relationships and maintain them. If a postdoc gives you teaching experience as well, it can be a plus for such things.
And, age is probably somewhat less of a factor in academic hiring than in industrial. A former spouse started their academic career after age 40 and did very well. You just need something valuable to offer.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/13
| 339
| 1,531
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently in the fourth year of my Ph.D. and I am fully engrossed in my research work. Sometimes I find it hard to revise some forgotten concept from a related subject. What is the best strategy to revise old concepts while one is simultaneously doing one's research work?
For example in Physics, sometimes a term comes in the research work that I have somewhat forgotten but not completely erased from my memory. Do I need to do a thorough study of an old concept or just revise it in accordance with its use in the research work?<issue_comment>username_1: If revising those forgotten concepts is beneficial to your work, this is the time that you can grasp those concepts well. It depends on the level you need the concept. Sometimes your research modifies some of the concepts or adds to them. In this case, you will need to do a thorough study, making sure that you are on the right track. But, sometimes, a quick reminder is enough to know the basic meaning of a technical term so you can continue reading through a research paper.
Seldom can one skip through a few technical concepts without knowing them well and yet understand related ideas or concepts.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you think you're likely to need to revise several topics that are situated in the same undergraduate course, you might consider TAing on that course: teaching material can be a very effective way to learn it, perhaps more thoroughly than you did the first time round.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/14
| 258
| 1,112
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied to school A for law school and got rejected. Now I'm planning to reapply but for a different grad program. Will the school have all my records from the law school?<issue_comment>username_1: If by Rejected you mean that you did not get into Laws, they will not have any records besides that you were a student who try to get into the Laws program, meaning they will have your basic information and maybe an aspirant number in their database.
However, if by Rejected, you mean that you were in Laws and then get kick out of the program, then yes, they will have record of your grades.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Only they can say. But even if they do it should have no affect on your chances. People can be better prepared for some things than for others. People can have a better record in some things than in others. Programs can be more or less competitive than others.
Unless you ask, just assume they do. But rules will probably make it hard/impossible for them to use things beyond what is in your application for that individual program (US view).
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/14
| 923
| 4,081
|
<issue_start>username_0: Do the sponsors of a conference have anything to do with the quality of that conference? In particular, can someone conclude something of a conference's quality by an NSF sponsorship? I searched around looking for NSF funding criteria but could find very little.<issue_comment>username_1: I'd suggest that prestigious organizations, including companies, will sponsor a conference only if they have high confidence in the organization and in its organizational committee. Associating themselves with less than fully reputable conferences has negative value for their reputation.
To get NSF (or IBM...) sponsorship, someone has to ask for it. The reputation of those who ask is, I assume, one element in any decision, along with an analysis of the likelihood of positive contributions of conference presenters, papers, etc.
However, I doubt that very many people use the list of sponsors to decide whether to submit to a conference or not. But, they probably use a similar *quality index* to that used by potential sponsors.
And, a collection of weird sponsors, might, on the other hand, indicate something negative about the conference.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is probably field dependent. For example in computer science, conferences are typically selective and there is a hierarchy of prestige. This answer will cover mathematics, where journal publications are what similarly "counts" on your CV.
As username_1 said, funding from NSF (or any other agency) is a sign of confidence in the organizers and their plans. In practice, it also means that you *might* be able to have your travel to the conference funded.
But keep in mind that "quality" may mean different things. I am an organizer of an NSF-sponsored series of regional conferences, and a major stated aim of the conference is to give local researchers an opportunity to speak and interact with the community. This includes early-career graduate students, as well as faculty at teaching-oriented schools who may not have many other opportunities to present their work. We aren't selective; we give an opportunity to speak to more or less anyone who requests one.
We indeed take pride in running quality conferences -- but it's worth keeping in mind that "quality" is not necessarily the same thing as prestige.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Being "NSF-sponsored" just means that the NSF contributed some funds towards the conference.
The NSF has a limited budget and wants to give money only to conferences that are worthwhile for some purpose. (Note that sometimes the purpose is related to "broader impacts" rather than "intellectual merit". For example, one of the selling points of the conference I'm writing a grant for is that it (and the area it covers) engages professors at universities where research is not a priority.) However, a small conference grant of say $10K is a very small amount for the NSF and they're not going to expend too much effort vetting the conference.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I can think of two mechanisms by which a conference might be considered to be "NSF sponsored".
One would be an NSF conference grant, where somebody organizes a conference and specifically applies for money to support that conference.
A second mechanism is if there is some larger NSF grant, and part of that grant has been specified to support a conference. For example, if somebody writes a grant to develop educational techniques, and part of their plan is to disseminate the findings, and in the grant they propose the best way to do that is to hold a conference, and funds are requested to support that conference.
I wouldn't think that NSF sponsorship would influence a person's decision to attend a conference, unless of course that sponsorship pays the attendees' way! It's possible that the speakers may be a little bit better than those in an unfunded conference, but not necessarily. Also, means of funding has zip to do with whether the conference is appropriate for a given individual to attend.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/14
| 3,432
| 14,809
|
<issue_start>username_0: Usually in industry, we are either employed (in which case our company pays us), or founders (in which case we go look for funding). To the extent that we need to spend the company's money, or hire people, we deal with the company. If we are our own bosses, we co-founders can consult each other for expenses (similar to "peer review"?) if it's important.
It seems like academics are not only employed by an institution, and have to deal with the institution, but also deal directly with e.g. the NSF. This seems to me like being employed as a research lead at e.g. Google, but still having to pitch VCs. Or like the big boss micromanaging skip-level reports. Are these bad analogies?
Why not do one or the other of:
1. NSF only funds institutions (lower volume of decisions), which make their own choices (e.g. internal peer-review) regarding projects, hiring/resourcing, etc (possibly more informed decisions?)?
2. PIs have independent labs (no institution)<issue_comment>username_1: This answer is probably limited to the US. You have a misunderstanding about NSF and probably other funders, such as industrial organizations.
The NSF funds *projects* not institutions (except indirectly). NSF depends on the fact that it need not provide basic salary and benefits for those it funds; the universities (and such) provide that since such institutions have multiple goals, not only research. But the NSF will provide funds for specific things proposed to it by individual researchers provided those things seem to have scientific merit.
I question your "more informed decisions" statement. It is the individual researcher that knows what is needed both in terms of funding and in terms of what is likely valuable to attempt to explore. Someone up the chain (deans and such) have more general responsibilities and don't normally get involved in the nitty-gritty of actual research. So, if the NSF (etc.) depended on administration for proposals, then two bad things would occur. First, the proposers could likely only make general appeals (Trust us; we do *good* stuff), and an extra layer of separation would be placed between the people with the ideas and the people with the funds to support those ideas. The researchers would still need to "apply" for funds, but to the administration, rather than directly to NSF.
Your second proposal (independent labs) would require much more funding. MUCH more funding. Universities provide both basic salaries, and the buildings in which those researchers work. NSF funding covers quite specialized things that may be (in the current political environment) beyond the ability of universities to fun. The university provides the "general" funding. Foundations provide the specialization.
Also, peer review works in the current scheme, since people at other institutions are willing to review proposals in their own fields. This gives a variety of viewpoints. If the NSF funded institutions rather than projects, then that would be lost. Each university could, I suppose, develop its own project review system, but it is hard to see how it could attract the same breadth of view or be reasonable to fund itself. It would add to the cost since it is more balkanized.
Companies can fund projects internally since they have a much narrower view (often product based) than a university (the "universe" in "university") does.
Startup companies with a new perspective need a lot of funding if they are to have a chance and the failure rate is high. It is very risky for funders, especially those in the basic sciences.
---
Orthogonally, researchers being required to get their own grants imposes a certain discipline of thought on them: a good thing. They have to be clear early on about the goals and the requirements. Clear enough to convince their peers of the value. This is also present in other schemes, of course, but it keeps researchers on right path since it requires justification prior to the research and also reporting afterwards.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: At least some research leads at Google and other similar companies certainly apply for federal and other grants. R&D in the US defense industry gets grants from the US DOD and mostly occurs outside academia. NIH funding is available for pharmaceutical companies for some aspects of research. I've known people that work in these areas and describe their work, and though every area has its own particular norms and procedures, there is far more similarity than the question here implies. Certainly the distinction between who pays the checks and where the money comes from is not unique to academia.
>
> or founders (in which case we go look for funding)
>
>
>
Another way to look at it is that every professor is an entrepreneur running their own lab. In smaller labs, like in smaller companies, they may do almost all of the work themselves. In larger labs, they likely hire much of the work out and take on a more managerial role.
If the government funded institutions directly, it would take decisions about funding away from people who know what's going on in a field (e.g., experts in underwater basket weaving decide which underwater basket weaving grants are worth funding). A given institution is unlikely to have more than one or maybe two labs working in basket weaving, so they don't have the internal expertise to make those decisions.
If the government funded independent PIs, those PIs would have to handle all the administration themselves: accounting, HR, ethics committees, logistics, etc. In the current setup, researchers say "I have the expertise to do this research", but institutions have the clout to tell the government "We have our eye on this, and we'll make sure the money is spent on what you said it should be spent on". There are certainly flaws in this system, but it seems like it's more reasonable to try to fix those systems from within rather than replace them entirely.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Science is expensive, and beyond the means of many universities. It is so expensive, that it's the traditional domain of governments and kingdoms to fund research. Tycho Brahe, for example, was funded by the Danish Crown.
When researchers are hired by universities, getting and maintaining funding to carry out their research is part of the job description.
As to the last parts of your question -- why not give the universities the money and let the universities decide who it goes to? Well, in fact, government grants *do* go to the university, and the PIs are the agents by which the work is carried out, but the review mechanisms usually lie within the govern agencies, and not the institution. I can't imagine that a university would be able to maintain the tight standards of review that the government can. Also, funding agencies often need to maintain tight control over how the money is spent. Different divisions within funding agencies have different mandates to fund different areas of research, and there is congressional oversight (in the US) over the whole process. The taxpayer's representatives in government need to have some control of how taxpayer money is spent. A school would not be able to meet these demands.
As to whether a private individual can apply for funding, yes they can, but it's probably unlikely that an individual can meet all the bookkeeping and supervisory tasks that the funding agencies demand.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I believe this is a good question, but is mostly relevant to US, Canada, UK, and possibly other such HE systems.
Indeed, different systems exist: in France the *government* hires directly civil servants to serve as academic researchers. In central or East Europe the government funds national research institutions.
Therefore, the way the US HE system functions is mostly cultural/historical, or in other words, based on the *business model* taken by universities (in the US/Canada/UK and similar systems). I believe that this business model on the one hand maximizes "revenue" for the universities, allowing them to run as "businesses" based on *student tuition fees* (this is the teaching aspect), while on the other hand it provides options for research (which is deemed prestigious, but not essential to the financial functioning of the universities), for only a *small* part of the employees who are meant to *compete* on resources on a continuous basis. So that, when they fail to secure research grants, they need to teach more and vice versa.
**EDIT**: *Comment*: Although in France and East Europe there is a growing reliance on grant money for research, the *extent* of which research is reliant solely on grant money is much lower I believe, than in the US. We have to look at it like a spectrum between fully governmental funded researchers, on one extreme, and fully project-based, ad hoc, short-term grant-based researchers in the US (with a clear trade-off between teaching and research) on the other extreme.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: I think these are not the right analogies because NSF doesn't give grant money to a university employee directly, via direct deposit into their bank account. Rather, the money is given to the university, to be spent based on certain rules that are enforced by the university.
A better analogy is this: Take Ford Motor Company as an example. It has people who produce stuff, people who manage and support those who produce stuff, and then it has sales people who pitch the product Ford makes (cars) to customers. But the subdivision of who does what in the company is by custom and convenience -- there is no inherent reason why a production person could not also have a 10-hours-a-week obligation to work in sales.
Universities are like this. They have a product (research conducted by faculty) and they pitch that product to customers (e.g., a government that wants research be done in certain areas, for example because it thinks that this is in the national interest). It just so happens that the people who produce the product (faculty) are also the ones who pitch the product to the customer (the government). If the customer thinks that the product is good, it pays the company (the university) some money for the company to make the product, and then the company's bean counters (the university's Office of Sponsored Projects) are responsible to using that money in ways necessary to make the product happen.
---
It is worth pointing out that this is not an uncommon business model outside universities as well. Governments pay many other entities (for-profit companies as well as non-profit organizations) for things that are not a tangible product such as a car. For example, there is a vast complex of companies that are paid for research -- say, the development of specific materials to be used by the military. And then there are entities that take care of building hiking trails in the mountains or forests, and they too often have people who both come up with ideas for where these trails are to be placed and pitch those to the government, and then are also responsible for actually doing the work or at least supervising the work when they land a grant for trail building -- people at many small outfits are jacks-of-all-trades, doing all jobs at once.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: It's part cultural/historical and partly a hedging strategy.
When the university was initally invented as an institution, it was entirely an educational establishment, and its professors were employed for one thing: to teach. However the people they employed to teach were generally scholars of their field in their own right. Back in those days there was really only two ways to do research 1. Be independently wealthy or 2. Do it as a hobby in your own time alongside a job. Being a university professor was the ideal job to support your research hobby with. Over time universities would offer time off to do research. Around 100-150 years ago they started offering lab space to scientists as part of those scientists' renumeration packages. But if you needed anything costly for your experiments, or needed an assistant, you had to sort that out yourself.
Now if you are a government you might maintain government research labs (and more or less all governments still do, think the NIH labs in Bethesda, or NASA etc). But sometimes you'd want some research done that was outside their expertise. Or some researcher would write to you with an idea you think would be beneficial, so you issue them with a grant to cover their costs, but it's a rare thing.
As government funded scientific research exploded in the 20th century, it did so against this existing culture.
Even quite recently time and resources to do research was seen as a benefit due to the academic, not a duty or a job responsibility.
But grant income does present a good way for universities to hedge. Say you want to teach a genetics degree. You need someone who can teach human genetics, someone who can teach mathematical genetics, plant genetics, molecular genetics, microbial genetics, etc. but you probably don't have enough work to fill a full time contract for all these people. With grant income, tuition fees only have to cover a part of their salary. And vice versa: someone's research specialty might not always be in demand, but there will always be teaching for them to do.
Block funded research institutes do exist: places like the Sanger and Crick in the UK, CERN in Europe, or Los Alamos or Jenelia farm in the US. But they are few, tend to employ on the absolute crem de la crem, and have a relative narrow research focus, and not be around for that long.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I think you're assumption that it's different in business is false. Getting a grant is a form of sales. The more complex the sale and the more sophisticated the audience, the greater the effort required to satisfy them.
What happens in business as well as academia is that very qualified people end up spending a lot of their time talking to customers, convincing others internally, or developing sales materials to allow it to be done by other employees. Like you said, the founders of a startup, who often know most about the product and business, focus primarily on raising money and hiring.
So, the academic question, is if you don't go off and convince people that you have great research, then who well? Who knows your research well and can explain to an audience and make them confident you can succeed? Of course, you can employ people to help you along the process, but you just can't outsource that.
The ultimate nerd dream is to go off in the corner and make cool stuff, but nobody will know about the value you produce.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/15
| 2,121
| 9,067
|
<issue_start>username_0: Currently, I am working on a model that includes deep neural networks. I am not an expert in coding nor are my colleagues.
I had a hypothesis and it seems to be working. So, I may need to write a research paper and publish it. It takes much time to go through every step and understand in detail the *code* modules I am using. I somehow managed to join the patches without knowing the coding-related details of each patch. I am taking the patches from the existing GitHub models.
Whenever I see the codes of research papers, they are well-organized by a team of experts. But I am alone and have no team. The research is a part of my thesis. I have no clue about organizing the code.
I have two options:
1. not sharing the code with the journal
In this case, if the journal asks for the code, then there is no other choice for me and I need to select the second option.
2. posting the managed code on GitHub and then keeping the link in the research paper.
I am afraid that the readability and the organization of the code impact the decision of reviewers.
Which option should I select now?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I am not an expert in coding nor are my colleagues.
>
>
>
This is [not the first time](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/186443/is-it-possible-to-ethically-use-an-undergraduate-for-publishing-my-research-as-a) you have made strange statements about "coding." It is true that you do not need to be an "expert in coding"; you are a researcher, not a software engineer. But understanding and organizing your codebase is something that everyone who works with code needs to do, not just the experts.
>
> I somehow managed to join the patches without knowing the coding-related details of each patch. I am taking the patches from the existing GitHub models.
>
>
>
I would be terrified to publish with code I don't understand. How do you know there are no bugs? I assume you have done some "sanity checks" and things made sense....but still, having to retract a paper because the way you "somehow managed to join" them turned out to be wrong would be unfortunate.
>
> Which option I can select now?
>
>
>
Poorly-written code may count against you, but refusing to share the code will probably hurt just as much. Which option you choose probably comes down to personal preference. To the extent there is a global norm, it is that sharing code is an intrinsically good thing and should be done unless there is a good reason not to (and "I did a bad job" is not a good reason).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: **Most likely NO**
>
> It takes much time to go through every step
>
>
>
This left me stunned: didn't you write the code yourself?
>
> I am afraid that the readability and the organization of the code impact the decision of reviewers.
>
>
>
This is likely a correct judgement: If the code is very unstructured, it should not be published because no one — not even you — can claim to understand it.
There are two possible answers.
Understand what happens inside the modules
------------------------------------------
If by patches you mean invoked modules or libraries, usually reading the docs will be enough to "believe" that they do what they claim to do. No need to understand all of the source code for each module in detail.
If you i) don't understand the docs for the modules or ii) there are no/missing docs for the modules and you aren’t able to understand their source code, then proceed to this third option:
(3): Learn how to code or start collaborating with someone who does
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Even *people who know how to code* can introduce bugs. Low coding quality and logical errors are a serious issue in published research code where even experienced programmers may write software with errors.
Imagine your question the other way around: "I don't really understand math, but I think I've proven something."
No, you didn't.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: If you do not understand your code, how do you know that it is actually working, and there is no bug in your code? And how can you publish something you don't understand?
It could be possible that you use synthetic/real data that somehow made the program produce the result you wanted to see. It happened to me before when I tried to modify my correct solution by adding "random" blocks of code in my program to see what might happen.
It was definitely an incorrect solution, yet it somehow produced the correct results for some situations. However, as I tried to spend more time analyzing other settings, the "random" algorithm completely failed to work.
Looking at the results is never enough to know if the program truly works. You have to spend time analyzing your algorithm. There is **no other option**. Divide your code into blocks, so it will be easier to know what is going on. At least, you need a good theoretical reason to explain why your program works (and under which situations it may fail).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: On the whole, **yes** it's okay. If the code works, it works. Data is data even if the method of collection confusing.
Obviously it's better if you could organize it better. It will also make it more likely that people will use your code and build on your research, which means more citations of your paper. But since you assert it is impossible to organize it, that ship has sailed.
Messy code is better than no code. The critical difference is that a paper with messy code can easily be reproduced. A paper with no code is a different matter.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: It's pretty much always the case (in situations that aren't security-sensitive, anyway) that making your code available to the public is the best thing to do.
As others have pointed out, you need to get help organising your code. Not only that, but if you're not clear on how your code works you need to do a code review with someone so that you can figure out if it really is doing what you think it's doing. That will likely include organising your code better: as a professional software developer, my first response when trying to understand badly organised code is usually to try to organise it better. (Obviously having some automated tests will help here, but regardless, "rework it so it makes more sense and then see if it still does what it's supposed to do" will both give you insight and possibly even fix problems in the code.)
If your code is freely available on GitHub you can point people at it and ask for help and suggestions. You may not get any response to requests for help, but if you keep it a secret it's certain that nobody can help you.
Also, depending on your paper, it's possible that the reviewers may need to see the code in order to review it properly. If they did need to see the code and couldn't, and let the paper go through anyway, both you and they may be doing a disservice to the entire academic community by keeping the paper from being properly reviewed.
Next time you do this, by the way, make the code publically available *from the start* and seek help and advice from others early on, while the code is still a small mess. That will help keep the code from growing into a huge mess.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Beyond what everyone else has already said, it is often useful to use **domain-specific knowledge** to come up with **big-picture checks** that, if passed, will give high confidence that large portions of the code are working correctly. This is where you, as an academic, can add value beyond standard software engineering testing practices.
For example, here are some big picture checks from my field (computational science):
* In finite elements, you can refine the mesh, plot the error vs mesh size, and verify that the observed convergence rate matches the theoretical convergence rate.
* In Newton's method, you can verify that the observed convergence rate is quadratic.
* In gradient, or higher derivative, computation, you can compare the computed derivative to a sequence of finite difference derivative approximations for smaller and smaller step sizes, and verify that the two converge to each other at the expected rate.
* In the computation of an adjoint code, you can compare (A(x),y) to (x,adjoint\_A(y)) and make sure they are the same to roughly machine precision.
These kind of big picture checks are extremely valuable, because bugs (wherever those bugs are) will almost always cause the check to fail.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: There are situations where finding a solution is hard, but verifying the solution is easy. There are other cases where verifying a solution is as hard as finding one, and the only way to verify it is to try finding the solution with a different implementation, check that you get the same results, and pray that both algorithms don’t make the same mistakes.
If you can verify the results of your code, that makes problems with it much less important.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/15
| 971
| 3,944
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am from Europe and always use a comma as a decimal separator. Thus, in all previous publications I have used a comma as a separator, noone ever objected. We recently submitted a new manuscript and one reviewer comment we got was that we **should** use points instead of commas as separators. The article was written in English; the journal has a style guide but the separator issue is not covered.
Personally, I think this request is weird, as both versions [are widely used](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Current_standards) and not, [like non-SI units limited to very few countries](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/182977/is-requesting-to-change-us-units-to-si-units-reasonable). Also, I don't think that anyone will mistake 2,34 mm as anything other than what it is supposed to mean, even if they would rather write 2.34 mm instead.
So my question is: is there an (unwritten) rule about that point instead of commas should be used as separators in academia that I don't know about or is the reviewer simply trying to change the data formatting to their own preference?<issue_comment>username_1: If the journal has no preference mentioned then I would stick with the customary one for the country of the journal. Much like you would use British-English for UK publications and American-English for USA ones (unless otherwise stated).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The ISO 80000-1:2013 standard allows the use of either "." or "," as a decimal point, but not a mixture of the two in the same document. It also says one should never use either of them as a thousands separator (the correct character to use as a thousands separator being a thin space).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: (You did not specify the language of the paper, so I am going to assume that it is written in English.)
There is no rule that *in academia* points must be used instead of commas.
There is, however, a rule that *in English* the point rather than the comma is used. If you are writing your paper in English, then you should use the point, for exactly the same reasons that you should write quotations "like this" instead of writing them «like this». (More precisely, this seems to hold in every variety of English [except for South African English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator).)
The fact that you feel inclined to use the comma rather than the point is more a question of you importing the conventions of your own language into English, not a clash between your personal preference and the referee's. It's not substantially different from a French person being inclined to write quotations «like this» or a German person being inclined to write "I think, that this is true" with the extra comma.
Of course, this works both ways. If you are writing a paper in German or Turkish, then you should use the decimal comma.
(Beware that I do not work in a field where decimal separators are used on a regular basis, though.)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: In American, British, and Canadian English, the decimal separator should be a point, not a comma. The Chicago Manual of Styles says the decimal point is represented by a comma in European countries except Great Britain (16th edition, rule 9.20). The trouble is that in US and British English, a comma is used to separate groups of three digits (e.g., 12,345.00), and therefore it should not also be used as a decimal separator. Not being able to unambiguously interpret 37,012 would be a major snafu.
The Chicago Manual of Style is followed by a great many publishing houses. It also says (rule 9.56) that in SI units, "thin, fixed spaces rather than commas are used to mark off groups of three digits", which removes the ambiguity I just pointed out. Nevertheless, the rule is clear, and US undergraduate students correct me if I use the wrong symbol for a decimal separator.
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/09/15
| 963
| 3,971
|
<issue_start>username_0: My son is starting university (in the UK) next week and has been given his timetable. The face to face lectures are from 5pm or 6pm until 7pm (just one starts earlier than this on a Friday, 1-2pm). I find this pretty shocking for a full-time university degree course, and have concerns on impact of learning and integrating with student life on the campus that this will have with starting lessons so late on in the day.
I'd be interested to hear from others - university staff or students that are starting university or mid way through a degree - is this the norm now, should he complain or ask why it's been structured in this way?<issue_comment>username_1: 20 years ago there were 5-6 lectures in both Birmingham and Oxford, where I studied. Students weren't particularly impressed, and I think it doesn't have a great impact on staff's family life.
Fast forward to now, and it's still true that there are 5-6 lectures in Birmingham. Occasionally there are 6-7 lectures, and particularly things like labs can run late. The main reason is that, with so many combinations of joint-honours degrees, optional modules, and so on, the timetable is pretty filled up. Scheduling that many tasks inevitably results in going past 5pm.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Back when I did my undergrad in the UK a few decades ago, students signed up for one of a small number of predefined courses: possibly there were some multiple module options in the final year. Since then there's been both significant modularisation with options even in the first year, and the huge rise in student numbers which also means that activities such as lab sessions now have to be run several times to cover everyone.
The upshot is that the timetable has had to expand, just to allow enough time for the students to have access to their modules, without any clashes over the various optional ones.
Twenty years ago we were already getting rid of keeping Wednesday afternoons free for extra-mural activities; now I hear of Timetabling trying to use the whole the 8am-7pm period...
(Similar answer to David's above, but with expanding on the "why" a bit)
Update: It does look a bit strange that the lectures are all concentrated at the end of the day, but then the OP is talking about barely ten hours a week of study time; which leaves another thirty-odd to fill. The course isn't stated, so it might be that the days are being deliberately kept free for some self-directed activity, or maybe the lab groups haven't been assigned yet.
The student can always ask via the "Staff-Student Liaison Committee" (or whatever they call it), this would usually be held towards the end of term but minutes of previous meetings should be available somehow; he should ask his Personal Tutor.
Other possible reasons (that I've witnessed) could be constraints around teaching staff availability (especially if they are part-time, have health issues or caring responsibilities, or are industrial associates), or issues relating to inter-campus travel.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In the US this is pretty normal, but I’m also thinking that perhaps “is it normal?” is not the most important question to ask. “Is this something I should be concerned about?” seems like a more relevant question to me.
In which case I would say the answer is “no.” Perhaps I’m out of touch with how university students live today, but if it’s anything like I remember from when I was a student, there isn’t anything about attending lecture until 7 pm that would interfere in any way with the average student’s ability to lead a normal and healthy life. Indeed, I suspect a fair number of students who have a more nocturnal lifestyle might well find it mentally easier to concentrate on academic material at that hour than say, at the more “normal” hour of 9-10 am.
So basically this seems like a non-issue to me. Best of luck to your son with his studies!
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/15
| 507
| 2,375
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently peer-reviewing a paper for a journal. I will recommend acceptance with majors, though the journal has asked for any other citations which may be useful to be presented to the author.
I have written one such article for an online publication which was published a few years ago. It is not an academic article, but is it *extremely* relevant to the author's paper. Still, the author would not read it or cite it if it weren't for my recommendation. Also, this article is written under a pseudonym, so the citation would never come back to me.
Should I recommend this article or leave it out of the review?<issue_comment>username_1: This is an ethical question about exploiting your role as a reviewer. If you cannot possibly profit from the recommendation and if you make it clear that acceptance of your recommendation does not influence your evaluation of the paper, then there can be no exploitation. The suitability of the citation will depend on the outlet. Online can mean many things, from blog to prestigious journal, but you will now better.
You can clear this with the editor. Editors tend to be reasonable people and no reasonable person would think that you are doing something unethical.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If your article is relevant to the paper then it is desirable to recommend it. You should bear in mind that reviewers are usually selected precisely *because* they are experts in the relevant subject matter, which often means they have published relevant things in that area. In some cases, a reviewer will have written one or more papers that are relevant to what they're reviewing, and indeed, this may even be the basis for their selection as a reviewer.
In this kind of situation, the editors already know who you are, so they will notice if you recommend citation of your own paper. If the editors have any concerns about the impartiality of this recommendation, they are free to view your paper themselves to determine its relevance, and let the author know to ignore that recommendation if needed. If you really want to head off any possible issue, you can specifically draw this aspect of your review to the attention of the editor when you submit your review (there is usually a section to allow direct comments to the editor that the author does not see).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/15
| 866
| 3,661
|
<issue_start>username_0: An author submitted a manuscript to a Scopus and a Web of Science Journal. Few months later, he received an email including the full name of the author, name of Journal and the title of the submitted manuscript. The email asking the author to pay $$ in order to accept reviewing the paper. Then, accept it for publication. The author immediately block the sender and report it as a spam. Then attached the spam email and send the case to the Journal asking for investigation. Should the author do any further action?
The sender was not associated with the journal. But how he got the information of the author? The sender ask for money to accept reviewing the paper and guarantee acceptance the paper. Hence, whatever the paper is, paying the money will result in accepting the manuscript.
The story in points:
1- Authour submitted the manuscript.
2- The status of the manuscript becomes "Reviwer invited" after about a month.
3- After 2 months the Author received unethic email. The email asked about the following:
● Gurantee accepting the paper for publication with one condition. The condition is to pay 200$ to the sender.
● before paying, the author must respond the sender with accepting the deal.
● Then, the sender accept the invitation to review the manuscript. Once this is apear in the system "Under review". Then, the authour pay the 200$.
● In 10 days, the paper will be accepted.
The journal is an open access journal. The author send the unethic email to the Journal asking for the investigation. It is Ok to reject the paper for 100 times, but it is not ok to published it in an unethical way. This is completely unacceptable.
Thanks for your help.<issue_comment>username_1: It seems you think this journal is *really* demanding fees from you to accept the article. That's extremely unlikely (note the journal is indexed by Scopus & Web of Science). Far more likely that someone is impersonating the journal and trying to scam authors. In other words, if you had actually paid the "journal", your paper would still be rejected.
The odds are good your paper is rejected because it is not "good enough". This especially applies if the journal sent you reviewer reports that clearly say your paper is not good enough.
>
> Should the author do any further action?
>
>
>
No, for the simple reason: what further action *can* the author take? What can the authors possibly imagine doing that will actually have an impact, beyond what they have already been done? I suppose they could file a police report, but it's the journal being impersonated, so the journal is the aggrieved party and they are the ones with [standing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)). If they don't do anything then nobody else can.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You did the only thing that you could do: Involve the editor. It seems at first glance that the reviewer selected by the journal decided to get paid for their work of reviewing and then extended this by selling a positive review for a little money.
It could be that local laws were broken (maybe some type of fraud or bribery), so you *possibly* could bring this to the attention of the authorities.
If the reviewer is affiliated with an academic institution, you could (and should) inform their authorities since soliciting bribes for positive reviews is very unethical. You might have to leave this to the editor since they know more about what has happened and the identity of the reviewer.
Of course, you might be dealing with a predatory editor, in which case the reviewer might have decided to profit just as well.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/15
| 483
| 1,900
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got a postdoctoral scholarship from a Turkish Science Institution. It covers a monthly stipend for a year and travel expenses.
A university in the UK accepted me as a "postdoctoral fellow". The university does not pay me any salary, they just host me. The Turkish Science Institution will cover my expenses as a scholarship.
Is a certificate of sponsorship from the host UK university still necessary for a visa application? Do I need to apply for a skilled worker visa?
Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is needed, as far as I know, for your visa application (you must have your sponsor on the visa I believe).
As for the type of visa, it is probably "skilled" visa, or "talent". But you have to ask your university's admin team.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your case is a bit unusual and you may want to consult an immigration lawyer. I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice. The admin team in your host University is likely specialised in Study and Work visas, while your situation may require a different type of visa.
* I do not think that a Work Visa is right for you, because you are not going to work in the UK, in a sense that you will not be employed by a UK organisation and you won't receive a salary in the UK and it won't be taxed by the UK government.
* I also do not think that Study visa is right for you because you are not going to study in the UK, in a sense that you will not be paying tuition fees to the University, which the UK government can tax.
Your situation may be covered by what was previously known as a Academic Visitor Visa. It now merged under the Standard Visa type, but there are still [special instructions](https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor/visit-as-an-academic) for academics. Please read the link and discuss it with your host institution and perhaps also with an immigration council.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/15
| 873
| 3,673
|
<issue_start>username_0: I left academia back in 2013, after completing my PhD. By chance, I've recently stumbled across a paper, published by my former lab group, whose central premise is rooted in experimental work I conducted.
I'm left with a vague feeling of injustice, but I'm not sure a) if any wrong has actually been committed, or b) what recourse I can seek.
Some notes:
* The first author was a peer whilst we were both pursuing our doctorates.
* The last author was our mutual supervisor and head of the lab group.
* Their paper was published in 2017, four years after I passed my viva.
* The findings are presented as novel (and, indeed, they were).
Whilst the paper goes further than my experimental work, I would argue that the central premise was my discovery. Yet, despite this, my name only appears when my other papers are cited - I am not listed as an author, nor is my role in the initial discovery acknowledged.
Am I being childish to feel annoyed by this? Or, on the other hand, could this be considered a form of plagiarism?
Finally, what action should I take? Write an awkward email to my former supervisor? Or the first author? Or the university or journal? Or just let sleeping dogs lie?<issue_comment>username_1: It's not unreasonable to feel aggrieved about the issue. At the same time, there is a difference between feeling annoyed and actually doing anything about it -- and the difference is that when you are about to do something about it, you should clarify for yourself *what it is you want to achieve*. In other words, *how does a good outcome look like* for you? And how much is that outcome worth to you?
Since you left academia some ten years ago, I suspect that you have found a career elsewhere. You may have started a family, and simply moved on. Your current work and position in life is no longer predicated on having one more publication -- there will be no pay raise for you if you were retroactively made an author, and your partner isn't going to love you more for it. Your kids aren't going to look up to you any more than they are anyway. Your parents aren't going to be prouder than they already are about their PhD son.
In other words, I suspect that there isn't actually much to gain for you. Is that worth your time, effort, and emotional energy? You might have every right to be aggravated by the situation, but my suggestion is that it might not be worth the fight.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: A PhD thesis is a publication. Thus you have published your results and anyone can build and extend it. Only real issue that the authors has done is not to cite your thesis. Therefore, I do not think there is an actionable issue here apart from a missing citation.
However, I do understand you would like to receive a recognition for your work, which you probably should have, since, they probably obtained more than what is published. But for that to happen you should have kept your ties with the research group and at least have some hand in the construction of paper.
Please understand this, if a research track should be stopped because a student is graduated/left, progress of scientific discovery will be slowed down. It is quite a common practice to give the topic to some other person if the previous person shows no interest to continue the work. And when you have no direct contribution to a particular paper, you cannot be granted authorship.
Biggest problem on their part is not to at least give a heads up about your work is being continued and asked if you would take part in it. Probably knowing you are no longer in academia your advisor thought you will not be interested.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/16
| 1,072
| 4,568
|
<issue_start>username_0: A colleague of mine working outside of Europe has encountered an absolute bizarre and, IMO, utterly unacceptable situation for the first time in their decades-long career as a chemical engineering researcher. I am myself stumped and do not know how to proceed and require some sound, honest advice.
A manuscript was submitted to a journal and was suddenly rejected following a tedious 18-month review process (this is not a Tier 1 journal either - a rather standard 'bread-and-butter' publication in our field). One might think the manuscript must have passed through several rounds of review in that time, but there was in fact only one round of (non-major) revisions. The timeline is:
1. Initial submission in 2021.
2. Two requests for reviewer suggestions from the handling editor.
3. Initial round of reviews in 2022 (this is 13 months after submission at this point).
4. Revisions submitted a month later. None of them were major.
5. A re-upload of a single Figure at a higher resolution requested after another month.
6. Following an inquiry about the status of our submission in another 4 months, we have received an entirely unexpected decision of “Rejection” this month.
There was zero explanation provided for a sudden editorial rejection 18 months after submission. As you can imagine, the science had also moved on in that time, and my colleague could well have submitted to another journal. Following an inquiry to the handling editor and the Editor-in-Chief for an elaboration (or, indeed, any clarification at all), we received the following (heavily paraphrased):
>
> The manuscript is unfit to be published in *Journal Name*. The
> language requires re-writing and the assistance of a language editor.
> Many technical expressions are either grammatically erroneous or
> completely non-sensical. The interpretation *spectra* is absolutely
> unclear. The conclusions leaves much to be desired.
>
>
>
This was the only explanation provided. The question is practically begging to be asked: Why was none of this brought to the author's attention at any point during the 18-month process? Shouldn't language with such 'unacceptable quality of technical expression' be immediately rejected before even contending for peer review? I was absolutely baffled when I heard about this, and advised my colleague to file any complaint possible to prevent other authors from experiencing this in the future.
This journal belongs to the first publisher that probably comes to the mind of anyone in the chemical sciences. Who can we contact beyond the Editor-in-Chief to file an official complaint?<issue_comment>username_1: While there is no guarantee of a speedy trial in academia, your points are valid. You’ve been dragged along Only to be rejected. Regardless of if you truly need help with your writing/ language, etc, you are entitled to meaningful and timely feedback.
Contact the general editor and submit a polite grievance. You may get a new bunch of reviewers under expedited status.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am sorry this happened to you. The "explanation" provided by the journal is phrased in such a generic way that can potentially apply to any paper. Given that your paper was under review for 18 months and no major issues were raised by the reviewers, such terse and tense response is unjustified and can be considered borderline unprofessional. It feels like a power trip from the journal team, and you are right to feel hurt by it.
I do not think there are effective ways to control such a behaviour, except naming and shaming the journal and the editor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Copying the general idea from a [previous answer of mine](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/105065/what-should-i-do-when-my-accepted-paper-is-subsequently-rejected):
**Check with the journal** to see if the decision actually is the one for the paper in question. Especially do this if it looks like the decision comments aren't relevant for the paper. What happened to this paper isn't as dramatic as what happened to the paper in the linked question, but it still seems very unlikely that a rational journal would act like this, so my gut feeling is that something went wrong, most likely human error. They could easily have confused your colleague's paper with someone else's.
If they didn't confuse the papers, then it seems to me that there were some confidential comments involved, in which case it's probably a good idea not to worry about given the missing information.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/16
| 1,049
| 4,398
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in pure math, now in my second year. I understand that different PhD supervisors have different levels of involvement with their students' projects, and I very much appreciate how engaged my supervisor is with what I am working on. However, there is something that concerns me regarding whether the input my supervisor has is appropriate.
He is mind-bogglingly quick and can sometimes outline proofs of new results during our meetings, which I then spend days making sense of, writing up properly in full detail, refining arguments where necessary etc. Sometimes he sends me notes via email containing unpublished results, with very little context. I do not ask him to do any of this, however I am very grateful for his help. Is this type of input unusual?
My main concern is that when writing up my thesis I may have to add in lots of disclaimers such as 'this proof has been communicated to me offline by...' to acknowledge that the original idea is not my own. Would this look really bad? Also, some of what he has sent me are results that I likely would have been able to do by myself given a bit more time, but I cannot demonstrate that now because he has beaten me to it.
Communicating my concerns to him is tricky because in my experience he does not respond well to questions unless they are of a strictly mathematical nature and I do not want to appear ungrateful for his efforts. Any suggestions or advice would be much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, he is probably doing too much. Of course, he has more experience in the field than you do, so can see solutions more quickly. It is hard to say what to do, unless you think it would be safe to have a conversation and let him know that you need to struggle a bit more in order to improve your skills.
But, you could also set his suggestions aside and work on the problems/proofs/whatever yourself until you reach a conclusion and then review them.
My advisor was probably able to write my dissertation much more easily than I could and one of the major proofs in it was his, since it had the potential for expanding insight (my proof was more standard).
But, if he isn't trying to steal your thunder, then it really doesn't matter if he has a proof before you do, unless he publishes it. If he is doing his job properly and guiding you then you will be first to publish. It is, however, much better that it is your own work that gets explicitly represented in the dissertation. And other people, unknown to you both, might also have had those insights first but didn't act on it. (Note Newton's dispute with Leibniz.)
There is a story (apocryphal?) about a professor who was very arrogant who told a (suffering) student "I don't mind writing your dissertation for you, but I'll be damned if I'll explain it to you when I'm done." I don't suggest that this is the situation you are in, but have included it here to indicate things could be worse.
But you would be wise to spend the time to get to where he got to easily by setting aside many (most?) of his hints until you get through the crux. If I remember correctly after more than half a century that is what happened in my case. The professor provided a proof (and I read it) but I struggled to create my own proof as well.
In math, note that it is (still, I hope) uncommon for an advisor to be a co-author on a dissertation, and the work is considered to be your own. But you need to find a way to make it so.
"Doc, I'll never get to where you are if you give me too many hints. I need to struggle through this for my own insights. Thanks."
Good luck. You have the right attitude.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends what type of relationship you want! On the opposite, there are students who have no idea about how to do something, and of course, their supervisors also do not have any idea where to start.
I have seen way more of the last ones. So I would say that experience beats everything when there is a time related project that has an end: a PhD.
Do not worry about the thesis, accept the input, write, let him revise. His job is to help you to pass and if he actually checks your job, amazing! Some supervisors barely ask for progress, or are happy with everything they are shown because they do not know if it is correct or wrong. Better someone to tell you, that is a mistake.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/16
| 2,547
| 10,440
|
<issue_start>username_0: According to <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2022). Nobel and novice: [Author prominence affects peer review](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4190976) (August 16, 2022):
>
> We invite more than 3,300 researchers to review a paper jointly written by a prominent author – a Nobel laureate – and by a relatively unknown author – an early-career research associate -, varying whether reviewers see the prominent author’s name, an anonymized version of the paper, or the less well-known author’s name. We find strong evidence for the status bias: while only 23 percent recommend “reject” when the prominent researcher is the only author shown, 48 percent do so when the paper is anonymized, and 65 percent do so when the little-known author is the only author shown.
>
>
>
The same effect was also replicated in [2006](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202669) and [2017](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1707323114), so it's not just one paper making this claim.
Given such a significant bias, would it be ethical to submit one's papers under a false identity? I.e. if you're <NAME> from Moscow State University you might be worried about bias against Russian scientists, so you submit your paper as <NAME> from MIT instead to make sure it gets a fair review. Or you might be working for the University of Alabama and worried that your papers won't get reviewed fairly due to the low rankings of your institution, so you instead pretend you work for Cornell.<issue_comment>username_1: It is ethical to submit papers under a pseudonym, see for example [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8603/112007). Journals do not require you to use your legal name.
But stating an affiliation that you do not have is unethical because you are misrepresenting. It associates your paper with an institution that may not want to be associated with it, and it distorts the publication statistics of that university.
Failing to state your actual affiliation may also put you in breach of contract, because institutions and funding agencies often require you to mention them in the publications made using their funding. Breaking a contract (i.e., committing to do something and then not doing it) is not only unethical but may also get you in legal trouble.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: **My two cents**
I do not think this question has anything to do with ethics. Unless you want to conceal your identity for some reasons, it just ***does not make sense*** to publish a paper under a fake identity just to be treated fairly. What will you do after that? Telling your colleagues that it is your work but you want to be treated fairly so you have to use the alias *<NAME>*? I think reviewers care more about the **quality of the paper** than the nationality of the author.
As for the study you mentioned, from my personal perspective, it is not a bias because if someone gets a fast-track peer-review just because they are prominent researchers. They deserve that because their "conditional" (probability of) error will be lower than that of other authors. They have earned that privilege. If they are wrong, it is the job of other researchers or even themself to show that, but in this comment, I implicitly assume that their papers are high-quality.
Also, why does a prominent researcher want to risk their reputation by publishing a low quality paper and hope that it will be accepted as a "high-quality" paper because of his/her reputation?
It is also an **UNFAIR** experiment to give reviewers the same paper that half of reviewers get the paper with the correct author name and the other half receive the paper with the fake alias *<NAME>*. The average quality of papers written by a prominent professor should be better than a random unknown scientist.
Of course, it does happen sometimes that someone wants to conceal their identity for a valid reason. In my field, the most famous example is probably the Student t-test. <NAME> published the paper about t-test and t-distribution in 1908 under the pseudoname *Student* to conceal his identity as his employer does not want him to publish the finding.
It may be the case that someone wants to use a fake identity to publish something controversial that they also want to conceal identity, but generally, it just does not make sense to publish a paper under a fake identity.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: No.
---
(**Edit:** this refers to using a *false identity*, that is, pretending to be a person that doesn’t exist but with the pretense that the person *does* exist. This is different from using a *pseudonym*, that is, hiding your own name but not making the misrepresentation that you are a specific other person with an institutional affiliation that you have no right to claim. As @username_1 says in their answer, using a pseudonym is perfectly ethical.)
You are describing a [Matthew effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect) (aka “the rich get richer”) in the context of academic publishing, where the notion of being “rich” corresponds to having a good reputation, being employed by a prestigious institution, etc. Your premise is that once a person is “rich” in that sense, it becomes easier for them to get “richer”.
Now, this premise may well be true (I personally believe it is), and it’s even something to be reasonably concerned about. Where things get problematic is when you cite this effect as your rationale for why certain behavior to compensate for the supposed “bias” associated with the effect should be considered ethical even though it involves clear dishonesty.
The thing to keep in mind is that such effects are not unique to academia, and exist in pretty much any industry and walk of life. Having a good reputation, whether it’s in academia, on academia.se, or elsewhere, will often translate into certain advantages and favorable reception for your ideas compared to people who are unknown in the field they are operating in. (Indeed, it's precisely these advantages that are the reason why the notion of "reputation" even exists as a meaningful concept.) And yet, as a general rule we do not condone dishonesty as a means of dealing with the supposed bias of reputational effects. E.g., would it be okay for me to claim to have won some prestigious writing award when I pitch my novel to a publisher, or to state nonexistent work experience on my résumé when I apply for a job? Obviously not. Dishonesty as a solution to the problem (even if it is a real one) of reputational bias is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. So no, it’s not ethical.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Wait a minute!
If you use a pseudonyms, wouldn't you fall under the category of "the little known author is the only author shown"? which results in worst chances for acceptance?
It seems like the only way to improve your chances is by choosing a name of a well known researcher as your fake name. In that case, doing so would be extremely unethical and probably also illegal.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: As a preliminary observation, I will just note that this phenomenon is a good reason that **academic journals should practice blinding** of papers sent to peer reviewers. For journals that practice effective blinding of papers, this whole situation cannot arise, so we are really just talking about the journals that don’t use blinding, or don’t do it effectively.
I think some of the answers here are being a bit uncharitable to your question, by making the assumption that deception of the peer reviewers in the process must be coupled with some broader deception of the journal, or even ultimate publication under a false name or affiliation. Ethical problems arise in those latter actions, but they are not necessary for what you want to achieve here. One can imagine an approach in which an author submits a paper to a journal (that does not use blinding) using their correct name and affiliation in the submission system and with correspondence with the editor, but giving a false name and affiliation on the actual document that will be seen by the peer-reviewer. In this case the submitter would presumably be open with the editor about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. If this were drawn to the attention of the editor, it would then be up to the editor to make a decision on whether a deception of their peer reviewer is justified or not. (In practice I doubt a journal editor would agree to this, since they can achieve the same results by blinding papers, without any use of deception.) If the editor is willing to go along with it, one can even imagine further safety protocols being added, such as disclosing the true author of the paper to the reviewer after the review is complete, and giving them some debriefing on the deception and why it occurred. And obviously if the paper were to be accepted and published, it would be published with the *correct* author name and affiliation, not the one used for deception in the peer review.
If such an approach were to be proposed, it would be quite similar to a number of experiments in academia where a subject group is exposed to a temporary deception to affect their behaviour and then they are debriefed on that deception at the end of the experiment. Ethics panels at universities routinely examine proposals like this to determine whether or not they meet ethics requirements. Typically, such actions will be allowed so long as the deception has a *bona fide* research purpose, is not too harmful, and so long as the people being deceived are debriefed at the end to be made aware of the deception and its purpose. In the case of a submission of a paper to a journal the difference here is that this is not an experiment, and the only research purpose is to shield existing research work from an adverse peer review effect that is not being dealt with adequately by blinding.
While such a proposal might not be looked on kindly, I’m not convinced that it would be impossible to do this ethically, and certainly without distortion of publication statistics. Nevertheless, the whole idea is somewhat undercut by the fact that it is simpler to just give a blinded paper to the peer reviewer to achieve essentially the same goal.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/16
| 1,165
| 5,012
|
<issue_start>username_0: As the news on the climate front keep [getting worse](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/08/world-on-brink-five-climate-tipping-points-study-finds) (not that it's unexpected, but it's still depressing), I would like to minimize my travels and consequently my carbon footprint. Naturally this includes my professional travels.
I assume that most institutions nowadays encourage this kind of effort, if only because many governments and organizations have committed to drastically decreasing their carbon footprint. Moreover in the past two years Covid restrictions have demonstrated that conferences and other scientific events can be organized remotely (with limitations, but it works).
I was hoping that remote/hybrid academic events would become the standard given the climate emergency (not sure whether this is the case?). At the individual level, I think I'm going to refuse traveling to on-site conferences in general.
I don't know to what extent this view is shared, encouraged or discouraged in the community:
* Is there any institutional/grass-root initiative about this topic in the scientific community?
* Is this encouraged? Is there any advice or support for individuals who choose this?
* Is this on the contrary frowned upon, considering that physical meetings are traditionally an important part of the academic process.<issue_comment>username_1: In my field (mathematics), there were some efforts in this direction already before Covid. Some organizers started an online seminar, and cited reduced clarbon emissions as one benefit.
Now, there are more online events and to some extent it is possible to participate in the community online. However, in-person events have resumed, and many people are eager to get back to normal. I have seen little enthusiasm for "online by default".
My sense is that you would have a lot of support if you *reduce* your travel -- if you pick and choose what in-person conferences you attend, with a preference for those without long plane trips.
If you *eliminate* all conference travel, people might admire your principled stance, but in practice you might gradually lose some of your ties to the community, or not forge them in the first place -- leading to fewer opportunities to talk and collaborate with others. This could be harmful, especially early in your career.
So my advice, if you want an username_1 career, is to travel at least a little bit but you certainly don't need to spend all of your time on airplanes.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In my university there is an effort to reduce the amount of flights to conferences. Going to conferences if you can get there by train seems like a more reasonable alternative to not going at all. This ofcourse depends on the availability of train infrastructure near you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This question is research-community-specific and opinion-based, so you likely will not receive a canonical answer.
>
> but it works
>
>
>
I can report what I observe within my own community (in computer science): enthusiasm for switching to hybrid or online conferences has significantly *declined* during the COVID pandemic, due to weaknesses in the online model that were revealed when theory was put into practice. In particular,
* an in-person conference *forces* you to disengage from your everyday life: you stop answering emails, cancel your classes and meetings, ask your partner or other caretaker to handle childcare, etc. While in principle you could do all of these things also when attending a virtual conference, in practice doing so is currently much less socially acceptable. As a consequence engagement at virtual conferences is typically poor.
* serendipitous conversations---the kind that happen in the hallways or at meals of in-person conferences and often lead to new research collaborations---are difficult to replicate in a virtual environment. I've seen conference try to organize virtual social events but I've found these to be poorly-attended and ineffective (see previous bullet).
* even when meeting with existing collaborators, working together online (on Jamboard, Mira, etc.) has significantly higher friction than working in-person around a table or at a whiteboard.
* many find that N hours of Zoom is significantly more draining than an equivalent N hours of in-person meetings.
Note that none of these weaknesses are insurmountable; but it seems significant additional cultural shifts and technological innovations are needed before virtual conferences become as effective as in-person conferences.
All that being said, I know some researchers in my field who have made a principled decision to stop attending in-person conferences, and their reputation has not suffered negatively as a consequence. But they've lost out on opportunities to network, build new collaborations, and strengthen existing ones. You'll need to make a personal decision about the tradeoffs.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/16
| 1,317
| 5,503
|
<issue_start>username_0: A friend of mine has a personal website, including a CV laid out on a page of that site (i.e. not a downloadable PDF/ODT/DOC) document. I want to help them spruce up that page somewhat.
Now, this could be made into a more complicated question if I said I also wanted the style of the CV to match the basic style of pages on that website, but let's forget about that for now, and just ask: Is there a utility, or web app, which can be given a CV (in any format - in a JSON file, by feeding into some web forms etc.) and lay it out elegantly in static HTML+CSS?
Notes:
* The result must have no Javascript, animation or animation-like effects (i.e. no "onmouseover", no CSS hover pseudo-elements etc.). So, "static" in the strong sense of the word.
* Naturally I'm interested in producing an academic CV, but if I had something for a non-academic CV I would probably be able to adapt the generated HTML for my needs, or whatever.<issue_comment>username_1: My read on your question suggests to me that you could start at the basic level with raw HTML. Let's stay platform agnostic in your workflow.
* Get a text editor that promotes its ability to work in raw HTML.
* Review an on-line tutorial that instructs how to work with the beginning elements in raw HTML.
The most basic format will have HEADER and PARAGRAPH elements as its only input. You may eventually include LIST elements. HEADERS would include such things as Education, Experience, Publications, Proposals, and Professional Affiliations. PARAGRAPHS and LIST elements would be under these headers. All the effort at this stage is simply to copy + paste the current information into the new HTML.
Once the basic HTML works and has all the content required, move to formatting. The standard approach for this is to incorporate a CSS style header or CSS style file. Will you need lots of CSS styling commands? Not really. Define the text size and font face in each ELEMENT (HEADER, LIST, PARAGRAPH). One distinct advantage with HTML (over PDF) in this case is the ability to use relative font sizes, allowing the person viewing the page to scale for their own needs. One certain reason also to include a basic CSS is to define the view for different platforms such as desktop versus tablet versus mobile device.
Can this process be automated? Perhaps. But ... for what you are asking ... the time you would invest to find, set up, and establish proficiency with an **automated** tool is likely not minimal. Alternatively said, you can probably find a good application that will allow you to do WYSIWYG layout designs of Webpages, but it will likely over clutter the source with its own ELEMENTS (e.g. SPAN, DIV, ID), perhaps include additional page settings (e.g. width=...), and maybe even end up putting in javascript code. By implication in you posting, you are seeking to avoid this. Also alternatively said, you may find a tool that will allow you to take the current input, run it through a filter, and have it automatically produce a new HTML to a different format. Then you will likely have to learn how to design your desired filter for old -> FILTER -> new.
You may struggle with raw HTML editing to achieve elegance in the Webpage design. Be prepared at that point to need additional CSS ELEMENTS. Rather than learn how to do this with raw HTML on your own, consider two options. Find a professionally designed template that provides what you want. Copy and paste the content from the old CV to the template. Otherwise find a WYSIWYG Web page design application, layout the content in the format that you want, push a button, and get a Webpage. The advantage is that you can format in almost any way you want.
As to adding content dynamically to HTML, the only way to do this is using a server-side script method. One example is to allow your friend to keep a CSV file for publications, download that file to the Web server, and have the Web CV automatically update with the most recent list. This avoids the need for anyone to have to re-edit the raw HTML later, e.g. simply to add a new publication to a list. This step could be a later investment in your effort, but only when you have confirmed that the server can support server-side delivery of scripts.
In summary, an automated tool to convert from an existing format to a new format may not exist or simply be too much work. Doing raw HTML coding is the most future-proof approach. It may however not provide you with an end result that you consider to be the most elegant. If so, consider copying into a template or using a WYSIWYG application. Finally, assure yourself that someone else (e.g. especially the owner of the CV) will be able to reproduce the approach that you take to put content together with format, especially if you will not be responsible to update content later.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Based on your requirements, [markdown-cv](https://github.com/elipapa/markdown-cv) seems like a good option.
To use it, you write the CV in Markdown (the same format that's used in Stack Exchange), and use Jekyll to convert it to HTML. Documentation can be found [here](https://elipapa.github.io/markdown-cv/).
Screenshots for reference:
Markdown Input:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H524k.png)
Rendered Output:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J8QAA.png)
---
I have no affiliation with this software.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/16
| 1,270
| 5,005
|
<issue_start>username_0: Sure I've heard about Impact Factor ratings that all public universities heed to... but I've also heard that you do peer-review for free, and publishers earn money from letting people read papers, and letting people publish papers as well. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply publish PDFs on own websites? Or just sell them in own webshops?<issue_comment>username_1: It would be much harder to find things of interest to almost everyone. Subscribing to a journal (or having the library do so) is a form of concentration of ideas that makes them easy to find.
And the review process helps people know what is valuable without having to do their own analysis of every paper. Many can rely on abstracts and summaries without having to verify every fact and re-test every hypothesis.
I've successfully self-published books, but the only reason they were successful was that everyone who had any interest in them already knew how to find me and my website. But for those books that didn't have a pre-existing audience? Nada.
Search engines can only do so much.
Note that the world was once like that, say in the 1600's. It was very hard to disseminate new/good ideas and just as easy/hard to publish junk. Progress has been made, though the world isn't perfect.
You can, of course, publish on your own. No one stops you. But you will find only a tiny audience in almost all cases.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I know a professor that ONLY self-published for a while, because after his Ph.D. he wasn't accepted into any post docs or teaching positions, so he wrote 6 books on the same topic, got relatively well-known, and essentially became an authority on it; after which he got the professorship. His path is quite unorthodox, so they do self-publish, it's just rarer.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I myself do think that people should put their work on their web pages, available to The Universe (=internet?)
I do put online everything I write, and in the last 20+ years have kept a mind about copyright issues with publishers, so that everything is legit.
It is true that, if one is not well-established in one's field, such self-publication scores no status/establishment points... while it still can obviously benefit everyone.
At a certain point, if one is not straining toward tenure or higher-status in some way or other, but has established oneself as a fairly reliable scholar, I think self-publication is the socially perfect thing. (Oh, yeah, nevermind pay-raises...)
Again, yes, if you have tenure, and are not concerned with payraises related to conformity... indeed, publish (!) on your academic web-site. :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It is not true that no academics self publish, although it is not very popular indeed.
Firstly, the fact that a book is self-published, does not mean that it hasn't been peer reviewed, or that it must be of low quality. I have bought and read two self-published books ([this](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0B4K1BTF4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) and [this](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1481869140/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)) and I found both to be of excellent quality and rather insightful.
Moreover, several people make their lecture notes available on their university websites; this is a form of self publication. Such material can often be better than many published textbooks.
<NAME> has published a book titled "Elementary Applied Topology" on Amazon. I haven't read it, so I don't have an opinion about it. It is interesting to read his blog post "[why I self-publish my mathematics texts with Amazon](https://www2.math.upenn.edu/%7Eghrist/whyselfpublish.html)". The reasons he mentions are: (i) he retains all copyright, (ii) he can set the price, (iii) custom style (figures, etc), (iv) good distribution around the world, (v) good quality of production, and a few more.
In the same post, he addresses some of the concerns people often have regarding self publication.
When it comes to papers, arXiv and other similar repositories have become very popular. Many publishers allow the authors to make a preprint of their paper available on arXiv or on university repositories.
Regarding your question about why the academic don't sell their papers via alternative channels, I believe that the majority of academics are simply not interested in selling their papers.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you consider putting PDFs on websites to be self-publishing, then I, and many other academic scientists, self publish. Most of the papers are posted on our websites and also published in journals.
In much of academia, a publication does not count towards career advancement unless it is peer reviewed. The reason to use a traditional publisher is to obtain the peer review, not to disseminate the publication.
ArXiv is a better way to spread work than self-publishing or traditional publishing.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/17
| 489
| 2,152
|
<issue_start>username_0: Currently applying for a research-related job in my field while in the last year of my undergraduate degree. I have conducted research and have publications in this field. I am wondering if the number of citations I have for my work is relevant, and if so, how many would I need to gain benefit by mentioning it? (I have 50)
The broad field is Computer Science.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Currently applying for a research-related job in my field while in the last year of my undergraduate degree.
>
>
>
In general, if you are an undergraduate then citations won't matter. It depends on the place and the position you're applying for. Again, another factor remains, i.e., the number of people applying for that same job position. In this situation, the organization that posted for the job vacancy would have to make a decision to choose the *right candidate* for their vacancy. Now, the word `'right candidate'` is relative in nature.
When a huge number of candidates apply for a single job position then one of the ways the recruiters tend to choose is to find ways to reject a candidate. If this happens then a higher number of publications(*and/or citations*) would give you a better edge. But it's all relative to the situation you are in. The choosing criteria can be absurd sometimes, but having a good research publication and citation at your level would always provide you with an extra edge.
You also have to `look into the job requirements carefully` to find out how much your research and publications are related to the specific requirements of the research-related job you mentioned.
So, No, there is no proper rule for undergraduates to have citations until you stand out in their eyes in some way or the other. That can be your research, your attitude towards the job, your direct relation(*your previous research and publications*) to the job criteria or sometimes even a good recommendation. A large number of factors can contribute to your success in getting the job.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **One** --- one citation is impressive for an undergraduate.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/17
| 806
| 3,560
|
<issue_start>username_0: I finished my PhD some time ago, and my relationship with my advisor was really poor. For instance he refused to write me any recommendation letter for my postdoc because he considered that working with me was extremly difficult (I think the same about him).
On the other hand I had very good relations with other permanent researchers, which includes my co-supervisor. They were able to write me strong recommendation letter which caused no problem for me to find a postdoc. Note that they are far from being as famous as my main supervisor.
As a last information in case it can play a role in the answers: from the feedback I got from talks given at international conferences, and more importantly, my jury report, my PhD was considered as outstanding.
---
I would like to pursue my academic career with hopefully a permanent position. The issue is that my former main PhD supervisor is extremely famous and has connections everywhere in my field. I don't think he will publicly say that it was hard working with me (it would give him a too bad reputation to do it), but I am worried of what happens "behind the scenes": small talks I will not know which might influence jury members for when I will try to find an academic position.
**My question:** I would like to know how likely this poor relation will cause me trouble for recruitements for permanent positions at universities or research institute (again, acknowleding the fact that my supervisor is very famous and has good connections everywhere). Do jury member take care to not focus on what a single person thinks in terms of human qualities? Which advise could you give me to mitigate the risk evoked here? Ideally I would like answers from people involved in such hiring jurys.<issue_comment>username_1: It is impossible to say, but you can probably avoid most of the potential for negatives since you have good relations with others and it has been some time.
Over time your career depends more on you than on recommenders. A good CV will be the main thing and positive recommendations from others will be a plus.
There is no need, in general, to name your supervisor in any application, especially as time goes on. Moreover the work you did as a doctoral student becomes less of a factor in any case.
Others here have suggested you try to patch it up. That may be possible or not, but one way to go about that is to have some trusted person, known to both of you, make the first overture. Perhaps your co-supervisor would be a good choice.
Even a mild suggestion from a colleague would put him on notice that he needs to tread carefully. But "behind the scenes" is invisible. Hopefully most people would behave ethically but it is impossible to guarantee that.
Sabotaging a former student is unethical. Keep that in mind. It reflects badly on the one trying it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you had no trouble finding a postdoc, then I wouldn't worry. Your relationship with your advisor is certainly going to have less of an influence the further along you are in your career. It's a bit of a cliche that for postdocs the advisor's letter is the most important part of the application (because they have a unique view of your research potential), and for TT the advisor's letter is the least important part (because by then you should be widely known in your field, and your advisor is biased). In general, yes a bad relationship with an advisor could be a big problem, but if that were the case *you wouldn't have gotten a postdoc*.
Upvotes: 5
|
2022/09/18
| 1,470
| 6,399
|
<issue_start>username_0: This question is hypothetical. I have completed my MS in mathematics and started thinking about applying to a PhD in Mathematics in the USA as an international student in pure mathematics. I'm wondering: what if I can not produce original research within 5/6 years? What should a student do if they can't discover anything new or interesting at the end of their PhD?
In pure mathematics, discovering a new thing is extremely difficult and nothing is ever for sure. I personally know a few people who have not published anything during their PhD. Will someone be kicked out if they cannot create anything new?<issue_comment>username_1: In the US, in most doctoral programs, the goal is to produce a dissertation, not publications. This was, I'd guess, more true in the past, but remains largely true. A dissertation is usually a relatively long work on a small, tightly focused, area of math. The dissertation might result in one or more publications after finishing the degree but getting involved in the publication process, along with the waits and revisions, isn't usually part of the process prior to graduation.
If you don't produce a dissertation, you don't finish. But most people finish successfully, though some take longer than others.
But, if you don't produce a dissertation it is likely because you didn't listen to anyone while you were a student. Students have advisors and advisors have a responsibility to get their students through the program. They suggest problems or, at least, small areas of math where exploration is likely to prove fruitful. They also give you feedback on what you do and suggest modifications if needed.
If you ignore your advisor's advice it is harder to advance. You aren't locked in a box, all alone, for a few years expected to emerge with some new mathematical field. Results in dissertations can be quite small or more broad. But they are very focused. Advanced graduate study pushes and guides you to that focus.
However, some problems that students attack prove too hard to find a solution in the time available even with the advisor's help. Some students have to "salvage" a dissertation out of failed attempts. But more students, I suspect, are advised to drop a problem if it seems, early on, to not be fruitful. And note that in math, proving negatives can be as valuable as proving positives.
There is a Three Bears issue in math (too hard, too easy, just right). In my own studies I experienced this directly. The first problem I worked on proved too easy and I could produce theorem after theorem daily. There was no substance. The second problem was too hard. After a few weeks it still seemed like a perfect titanium sphere with no possible cracks for entry. Nada. The final problem was "just right" and with work and developing insight a nice dissertation (later published) emerged.
With your advisor's help, choose a tractable problem. Work hard. Succeed. Or, at least, learn that this isn't what you really want.
---
Note that working mathematicians seldom work in isolation and collaborate widely, sharing ideas. Colleagues substitute for advisors in a sense. Ideas fly around. Some of them result in nice papers. Some are discarded.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no reason to sugarcoat the answer: you are correct, if you do not produce original research (in the form of a written dissertation, not necessarily a publication) then you will not graduate. This happens to a fair number of people.
HOWEVER: the *way* in which it happens, and the reasons *why* it happens, are typically not the ones you’re imagining. What usually happens is that people discover that they don’t have the passion for research that they thought they did before they really understood what research is. They come to realize that research is not a good match for their interests and abilities. Then they leave the program, typically after around 2-3 years and with a Master’s degree instead of a PhD, having learned a lot of interesting mathematics, and having learned useful things about themselves.
I would say that it is pretty rare that someone stays for 5-6 years and *then* fails to graduate. If they lasted that long, they must have advanced to candidacy, found an advisor, and must already have been making decent progress with a research project. The system is set up to monitor people’s progress and not allow them to reach a point where they fail catastrophically right at the end after investing a large sunk cost. Which is not to say this never happens — all sorts of things happen, including various life events, physical and mental health issues etc — but rather that this is a worst case scenario that almost always has much more complex causes than “I didn’t discover anything new”.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It depends on what your goal is.
Yes, a PhD requires writing a dissertation that contains original research, but the bar for this is actually very low. I have seen many dissertations which are less substantial than my undergraduate honors thesis. (Admittedly, my undergraduate thesis was substantial enough to be publishable in a decent journal.) I have seen other situations where all of the non-trivial ideas in the dissertation came from the advisor. You should always be able to find an advisor who will let you graduate with very little (but not zero) in the way of original work, and the original work could be of a very routine nature. The resulting dissertation might not be publishable, or might be publishable only in a very low ranked write-only journal, or it might be obvious in some way that it is really the advisor's work (because the advisor doesn't mention your contribution in their letters and you can't talk about your work intelligently in interviews).
If your home country has a shortage of PhDs and any PhD is sufficient to get you hired, then this is all okay (and you have genuinely participated in research, which is helpful to your future students). If you're looking to continue a research career in the US or Europe, such a dissertation will leave you with almost no opportunities. No one will hire you for a postdoc. (Well less than half of pure mathematics PhDs in the US get an offer of a postdoc.) Increasingly, you also need some research success to be hired into a permanent position at a teaching-oriented university.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/18
| 675
| 2,947
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been applying for graduate level positions at several labs in the US, and I received the following reply from the PI of one of the labs I applied to - "if you are interested you should provide two or three references who are willing to write letters of recommendation for you, and we should then also schedule a Zoom interview."
What does providing references exactly mean? Should I just include the name, details and email of my referees and send it via email to the potential supervisor, who would in turn contact them for the recommendations or should I email the people on my list of referees and ask them to drop an email with my letter of recommendation to the potential supervisor's email?
I am confused. Please let me know what is the norm in academia and how should I proceed.
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: It is a bit ambiguous. You can ask for details. But before you provide names and contact information, ask the potential recommenders for permission and say that a letter will probably be asked for. Don't let it be a surprise.
I hope, but assume, that they want a letter and not a conversation with recommenders. That would be the norm.
Normally letters come with the application itself. Here they seem to be willing to delay the need for them until they speak (zoom) with you. But give everyone a heads up so they can be thinking about what to write or say.
And three letters is pretty typical.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Sometimes, they want to have a **short** conversation with the referees via email.
Here is the **academic reference/letters of recommendation** section in the guide for Master of Philosophy applicants at the University of Queensland (UQ). I have found it useful as it shows everything I need to include in my application **to UQ** (no more, no less). It is likely to be the same for Doctor of Philosoply applicants.
Furthermore, the application will not be finalized until the Graduate Office **manages to contact the academic referees and receives the letters of recommendation from them**.
**Academic referees**
*Please provide us with two referees who can comment on your academic work. For each referee, include their:*
* honorific and name
* role title
* employing organisation and the city and country where they are located
* contact details, including office address, telephone, fax and email (preferably an institutional, rather than private, email address), and
* an indication of the capacity in which you know this person (e.g. were they a lecturer or thesis supervisor, an employer, how long you’ve known them etc.).
**References/letters of recommendation**
Include the contact details of two referees who will support your application. These referees will need to provide insight into your research experience.
We will contact your referees for a report, but you will need to enter their details into the application form.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/18
| 1,247
| 5,326
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm worried that I am not working on things that bigshot academics care about and that this is hindering my ability to get a good job. Is there **any** point in trying to become an assistant professor if I don't work on a trendy topic? On job applications they say something like, "We give priority to applicants whose research matches faculty interests." What that says to me is that if I work on the *wrong* research topic, that will tank my application.
If so, I think I should do the following:
* Find which universities I am interested in.
* Find the faculty there and read their papers and find what *they* are interested in.
* *Switch* my research area to be that topic, ideally so that it intersects my own interests/knowledge base.
What do you think of my plan?<issue_comment>username_1: Your plan is fine as long as you don't choose a topic unless you are *really* interested in it as the primary objective. What is trendy will change.
Note also, that R1 (Research Primarily) universities tend to have large faculties. Those faculties, collectively, have very wide interests, not just "trendy" ones. Many of them, senior professors, are less likely to work on what is trending at the moment, having built careers on more fundamental things.
So, the first two bullets are just right, with the third having some caveats. Do what you love if you are able, not what other people love.
And it is people in mid career and older who are likely to be dominant on hiring committees. If they are sensitive to the needs of assistant professors for collaboration then they might be willing to hire someone to work with them (trendy, perhaps), but only if it seems to have sufficient legs for the long run.
But, faculty interests in a research faculty are very broad, as you will learn.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There is a difference between "trendy topics" and
"things that big shot academics care about".
To increase the chances to get a good position in a research university you should definitely study something that enough people care about. But it should not necessarily be trendy. Though trendiness increases your chance in getting a better job, it is not a necessary condition: many bigshots are senior academics who are interested in what was trendy in their time, for example.
Overall, I would estimate that there is a **tradeoff**: as you work in a less trendy topic you need to be a stronger researcher to get a good job at a research university.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: A famous-in-his field professor answered the question how much a topic matters for hiring junior faculty when asked during a class break as follows: "We hire the person, not the topic. If we think your topic was stupid, we will gently nudge you to re-focus."
Do what appeals to you, and excel at that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: One of the things many mathematicians have trouble developing is what might be called "good taste" - a sense of what mathematics is genuinely interesting and can lead to further interesting developments. Some have so little taste that they declare that there is no such thing, and then claim the popularity of various research areas is driven purely by the entirely arbitrary decisions of famous mathematicians.
Good taste is important in research university level research for two reasons. First, if you are in an interesting research area, at some point all the problems you are working on will be solved or found intractable, and you will need to find new problems, and you will be doomed to obscurity if you pick bad problems. Second, at an R1, you are expected to have graduate students, and this means guiding them to good problems, at least good enough for them to write a dissertation. Hopefully, you will also help develop good taste in your students, which is easier if you have it yourself.
If you have good taste, it's hard to imagine that you will be working on something that's completely uninteresting to everyone in a large department, or something that's uninteresting to everyone in a collection of smaller departments (all of which presumably you'll want to apply to). (Matters could be different if you have some reasons, for example geographic ones, to want employment in a particular single small department.) You might not be working on anything that someone at the department is working on, but you'll be working on something that's interesting to someone. I might add that mathematics is more connected than one might think, and someone working in an apparently complete different area could be interested in your work because of some connection you don't know about. Keep in mind that departments rarely want to hire someone working on exactly the same topic that they already have someone working on, because you wouldn't be able to advise students the other person couldn't, and so on.
Now, it is very hard to evaluate good taste for someone at the point in their career where they are applying to tenure-track positions, and faculty are naturally likely to think their taste is good, so one can try to fake good taste by emulating the tastes of others. I suppose it's a strategy, but if you're willing to work on something you're not really interested in, why not go to industry and make more money?
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/18
| 497
| 2,118
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm planning to apply for a Master's program in Germany, but the final grade I received in high school was awful (67%) due to the grief I experienced after the death of my parents. Although my grade in high school was sub-par, my GPA was excellent for my bachelor's degree.
Are low high school grades a problem if I want to get admitted into a graduate school in Germany? They (the university) and the embassy ask for it in the acceptance requirements.<issue_comment>username_1: I would say that your bachelor's GPA will count significantly much more toward the application process to graduate school (compared to your high school GPA).
If someone asks why your high school GPA was low, you can simply give them the straightforward answer as you wrote above. They will understand.
Some graduate schools may ask for your high school GPA just for the record. What matters the most is your bachelor's GPA.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, university admission in Germany is pretty bureaucratic. You have to fulfill general requirements, and if you meet them, you get into the program. The requirements for a master's degree are a bachelor's degree in the same / closely related field and proof of a high school diploma (in Germany, Abitur). For foreigners, proof of language proficiency is often required as well. Letters to the admission office explaining why your grades are not as good as they could have been will probably not be read and will certainly not matter.
For a reason stated above (general requirements), the university asks for a high school diploma---not necessarily because of the grades but to see that you finished high school. Many master's programs will admit (almost) anybody that fulfills the abovementioned requirements, as applicants do not overrun them. Others are more competitive, but the deciding factor will then either be the grade of the Bachelor's degree or a combination of BA grade and high school grade.
Ask the uni(s) you want to apply to about admission requirements; with a good BA, you will probably quickly fulfill them.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/18
| 709
| 3,305
|
<issue_start>username_0: For example, many of the published papers didn't take A into account when running some simulations to calculate B and I am trying to address the importance of A in my paper. How should I properly comment and/or criticize the existing work?
Suppose I say something like this: most of the existing works omit A when calculating B, which can lead to the wrong conclusion. I feel it is too aggressive and offensive. Alternatively, if I say it very mildly, the importance of my work may be not clear to the audience. So, my question is, what is the proper way to stress the importance without being offensive? Also, should I cite some of the papers that didn't take A into account?<issue_comment>username_1: There is nothing offensive about noting a limitation in an existing method, and what you want to write does not strike me as offensive to begin with. If existing works didn't take A into account then they didn't take A into account, and it is okay to say this clearly and openly. Nevertheless, if you want to temper your critique to be as charitable as possible to existing works (which is generally a reasonable idea), you can do this by also stressing the merits of the methods you are criticising before pointing out their limitations.
I once wrote a paper where I developed an algorithm that gives exact results for a problem where existing methods gave only approximations (sometimes incorrect). In that particular case, my own algorithm was more narrowly tailored to a smaller class of problems than the existing methods, but it worked better in that narrow class of problems. In my exposition of this algorithm I made it a point to stress that the drawback of the other methods (e.g., giving only an approximate solution) were a result of their greater generality, and that these were still useful methods in broader problems. In that case it was unclear whether the existing methods were intended to solve the problem I was dealing with, so I merely noted that they didn't clearly rule it out-of-bounds, but only gave an approximate solution that was sometimes in error. That is the kind of thing we do to ensure that the reader understands the value of existing work, but also its limitations.
Remember that academic research work typically involves innovation over existing methods/knowledge, so ideally new work will bring some improvement to existing work. This means that there is usually some limitation in existing work presenting a "gap" that is being filled by the new work. In order to explain the contribution of your own paper, it is perfectly appropriate to clearly articulate the limitations of existing work and the resulting "gap" in knowledge that you are addressing. Ideally, other researchers will build on your own work in turn and address limitations in your own work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you want to say something that may be viewed as negative, simply state it without being too colorful with adjectives and you should be fine. Also, Most universities have writing centers or services that help with this type of thing if you prefer having someone review your writing before you submit it. I've used them multiple times in the past, there's no shame in it and it definitely helps you and gives you reassurance.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/19
| 1,802
| 7,657
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am invited to present in a session at a conference, and the conference requires presenters to pay the registration fee themselves.
I usually will have some research grant/ travel fund to cover the registration fee; however, this year, I don't have any financial support from my institution.
The conference is extensive and usually has lots of great talks in previous years, so I think it's a good idea to attend. And it's a big event so that I can promote my work and it's suitable for my key performance indicator (KPI) too. However, the fee is not small, and I don't know if it is normal for early career researchers to pay for these events themselves. If I pay, does it make me look bad because I feel like it shows that I failed to get research support?
Edit: thank you everyone for the answers! I should clarify that I only consider paying myself because it’s a virtual conference and so I don’t have worry about travel cost. While I know that virtual conferences don’t bring as much benefit as in-person events, it’s still not as easy as before the pandemic to travel, and I consider this as a way to get some interactions with people in the field. But I do agree that I should only do this at most a few times.<issue_comment>username_1: It is not that normal--but also not completely rare. I know of several who did this (including myself).
But you can pay for yourself *without anyone knowing this*! Indeed, conferences do not gather information on the funding sources of participants.
Hence, your problem is solved.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This happens all the time. Many academics travel a bit more than their research budgets allow. Most registration fees are paid by the participant directly and then the participant applies for reimbursement. A cumbersome system that can cause problems, but it does mean nobody knows how much you end up paying yourself.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: @Roland made an important point in a comment that was later removed.
In most cases you pay by yourself by some means, and then get reimbursed ("repaid"). As the reimbursement is between you and your university, no-one at the conference knows that you will *not* be reimbursed.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: As other answers have made clear, nobody else attending the conference will have any idea whether you were reimbursed by a grant or your institution for your travel expenses or if you're attending on your own dime.
Note that some conferences have some funds available to support early career researchers (although this funding is often limited to students):
* <https://www.aps.org/meetings/events/futurephysics/travelgrants.cfm>
* <https://www.scipy2022.scipy.org/financial-aid>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: No one will know that you paid yourself, since most people pay in advance out of their own pocket and then get reimbursement from the institution or funding source.
However, even if it's not unheard of, I think that paying for a conference yourself without reimbursement is highly, highly problematic. I would never do it myself, and I actually refused to pay out of my pocket much smaller work-related expenses.
For many, me included, research is a lifelong passion, but one must also remember that it's a job. And all work-related expenses must be paid by the employer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: In mathematics, in the U.S., in the past, the idea was that one had grant funding to pay for travel and lodging at conferences (from NSF, for example), or, if one was in "invited speaker", the conference would pay for one's expenses. (Still, in most cases, one had to pay, and then get reimbursed...)
This has created an unfortunate model, in which one's home university most often does not consistently pay for conference expenses. You're supposed to get grants to pay for it yourself. In some cases, I've seen (limited) funding of grad students to go to conferences.
On another hand, as in other answers and comments, no one will know the ultimate source of your funding for the conference.
So, operationally/practically, yes, probably a person needs to go to conferences... and cannot expect to have these expenses paid... though no one will know if you pay from your own funds.
(Mild irony that more severe pandemic times made the economics of conference attendance more egalitarian... For that matter, even ignoring money, I'm ever less enthusiastic about going to airports, sitting in airplanes, figuring out taxis, etc., just to give or hear talks that would scarcely have been different by Zoom...)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: This is not particularly common, but certainly not unheard of. Universities will fund conference travel for their faculty up to an extent, and subject to approval in specific cases, but sometimes these applications for funding are not successful and the academic decides to go anyway, on their own dime. Some important points to note about this situation:
* If your institution assigns Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for your work then they have an obligation to give you what you need to acheive those KPIs. It's not clear from your question exactly what the relevant KPI here is, but if it requires you to attend a conference, and they are not willing to fund that, they cannot reasonably assess you adversely on that KPI later. If your university will not fund your conference travel, but expects you to deliver a conference talk as a KPI, they are effectively setting you a work task that is impossible to achieve without your own personal funding. In employment law, impossible work tasks leading into adverse performance reviews are often interpreted as a form of bullying and unreasonable management (again, depending on relevant laws in your jurisdiction). If you are in this type of situation, have a calm and reasonable conversation with your boss on the problem to see what can be done. (At minimum, they might reduce your KPIs to conform more appropriately to your funding situation.)
* Some conferences may allow a discounted fee in some cases when they are dealing with academics who lack funding, particularly if they are early-career researchers. This is certainly not guaranteed, but it is something that you could write to the conference organisers to inquire about. Many big conferences take a long-term view where they hope to attract younger poorly-funded academics who will later be older better-funded academics. If you think this is a possibility, write to the conference organisers, tell them your circumstances, and see if they can offer you a lower fee for attendance.
* If you are self-funding for an academic conference that relates to your work then it is probably the case that the expenses you incur are **tax deductible** as a work-related expense (depending on specific tax laws in your jurisdiction). This means that the costs will usually come out of your pre-tax income instead of post-tax income (so it will end up a little cheaper than it might otherwise be). Make sure you keep all relevant receipts for your costs and consult advice at tax time about claiming these costs as work expenses.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Don't forget there are other fees for attending a conference, beyond the registration fee. Things like air fare, hotels, food etc. If you don't have funding for the conference fee I expect you don't have funding for the other stuff. Depending where the conference is, the other costs can add up to be alot more than the conference fee itself. So that is something to keep in mind if you are self funding a trip to a conference.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/19
| 683
| 3,115
|
<issue_start>username_0: Sometimes in IEEE magazines I see Part 1 in one issue and Part 2 in the next issue.
How does this work when writing and submitting? Do I need to submit both parts at the same time or does IEEE decide to split it? Can there be more than a one issue delay between Part 1 and Part 2?
As part of my PhD requirements, I have to write two papers, one with a review of the latest papers in the field and another with my contributions. Many Part 1 and Part 2 papers are organised like that.
My two papers cannot be published at the same time and unless the first part is published, University will not consider approving my contributions.<issue_comment>username_1: You need to see what your predecessors did. I am concerned for you based on your question because I do not know any IEEE transactions or even conferences that accepts review / survey papers. There is the ACM Surveys, but the authors there are often very well known people who write about their research field of the last decade. The IEEE magazines are aimed at practitioners for their readership and the literature review of a typical Ph. D. topic would be usually too specialized.
Also, any IEEE transaction will usually want to have a "related work" section in all papers, so splitting it up like you are supposed to do is really difficult.
I am in Computer Science and my answer might be too discipline dependent. But, to repeat myself, I am afraid that your university is making your life really complicated. Your predecessors must have found a way around a restriction that might make sense in Philosophy or Theology, but not in Engineering or the Sciences. Find out what they did and follow their example.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The way you phrased your post is a bit misleading, I think. There are two possible answers.
**Answer-1**
It seems that your supervisor/university requires you to first publish a literature review/survey followed by one or more contributions. This is quite the norm in engineering and computer science. In practice, in their first year, students conduct and write a literature review/survey, and identify a number of research questions. They then submit the survey for review. At the same time, they start work on their first contribution or research question. By the time they complete the first contribution, the survey paper may have received feedback. Students then revise the survey paper, and finalize their first contribution. At this point, they have two papers in review. They then start on the second contribution, and the cycle repeats.
**Answer-2**
There are papers whereby authors break up a huge paper into two parts. The first part deals with theory. The second part deals with the application of said theory. For these papers, both parts are submitted simultaneously.
An example from IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing:
* Parallel and Distributed Methods for Constrained Nonconvex
Optimization—Part I: Theory.
* Parallel and Distributed Methods for Constrained Nonconvex
Optimization-Part II: Applications in Communications and Machine
Learning
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/19
| 662
| 3,005
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a second year PhD student in mathematics.
I often feel like research is emphasized much but teaching is not as compared to research.
I enjoy both aspects of my job. But worry if I may lose motivation on putting my effort into teaching later in my career. Therefore I am seeking some inspiration from other fellow mathematicians.
Could you share stories of mathematicians/physicists, or perhaps yourself on how you managed both in research and teaching, and still find joy in both aspects?
Edit: I live in the U.S.<issue_comment>username_1: You need to see what your predecessors did. I am concerned for you based on your question because I do not know any IEEE transactions or even conferences that accepts review / survey papers. There is the ACM Surveys, but the authors there are often very well known people who write about their research field of the last decade. The IEEE magazines are aimed at practitioners for their readership and the literature review of a typical Ph. D. topic would be usually too specialized.
Also, any IEEE transaction will usually want to have a "related work" section in all papers, so splitting it up like you are supposed to do is really difficult.
I am in Computer Science and my answer might be too discipline dependent. But, to repeat myself, I am afraid that your university is making your life really complicated. Your predecessors must have found a way around a restriction that might make sense in Philosophy or Theology, but not in Engineering or the Sciences. Find out what they did and follow their example.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The way you phrased your post is a bit misleading, I think. There are two possible answers.
**Answer-1**
It seems that your supervisor/university requires you to first publish a literature review/survey followed by one or more contributions. This is quite the norm in engineering and computer science. In practice, in their first year, students conduct and write a literature review/survey, and identify a number of research questions. They then submit the survey for review. At the same time, they start work on their first contribution or research question. By the time they complete the first contribution, the survey paper may have received feedback. Students then revise the survey paper, and finalize their first contribution. At this point, they have two papers in review. They then start on the second contribution, and the cycle repeats.
**Answer-2**
There are papers whereby authors break up a huge paper into two parts. The first part deals with theory. The second part deals with the application of said theory. For these papers, both parts are submitted simultaneously.
An example from IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing:
* Parallel and Distributed Methods for Constrained Nonconvex
Optimization—Part I: Theory.
* Parallel and Distributed Methods for Constrained Nonconvex
Optimization-Part II: Applications in Communications and Machine
Learning
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/19
| 308
| 1,089
|
<issue_start>username_0: Has there been any successful examples of crowd funded academic research projects? (i.e., instead of grants from funding agencies)
I would restrict the scope of this question to only within academia.<issue_comment>username_1: [Tabby's star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabby%27s_Star) is a variable star that used [Kickstarter](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/608159144/the-most-mysterious-star-in-the-galaxy/description) to crowdfund the purchase of telescope time on Las Cumbres Observatory. The observations and many others concluded the mysterious variability was caused by dust extinction around the star.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: [crowd.science](https://crowd.science/) is a crowd-funding platform for academic research which includes a host of examples of crowd-funded academic projects. Notable recent projects include the funding of [LSD brain imaging at Imperial College London](https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/scientists-use-crowdfunding-to-boost-research-into-lsd-effects-on-the-brain).
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/19
| 1,978
| 8,437
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the final course of my bachelor degree program. I am from the country of Georgia.
I am aiming to complete a PhD in USA without a master's degree in a mathematics field.
So I have one question about it:
* Will I be able to fly back to Georgia on holidays and see my
family? Are there holidays on PhD in the USA? Is it possible to fly back to Georgia without holidays?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, there are holidays. Exactly when they are depends on the school.
The biggest problem for international students is the possibility that your visa will be revoked or your home country will not allow you to return to the US. But these are not questions that can be answered here. You need to know what the current diplomatic status is of Georgia with the US and whether that is likely to change in the future.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it's normal for PhD students in the US to travel to visit family. You'll have to pay all costs yourself. You'll want to pay careful attention to any restrictions with your visa, and consider complications of international travel that may make it difficult for you to either return home or get back to the US. Certainly international conflicts and sanctions, as well as health-related travel restrictions as have been experienced along with the COVID-19 pandemic are all concerns, but these are not particularly specific to being a graduate student.
PhD students in the US are most often funded by doing some sort of work while they study; for math, in particular, this is often through appointment as a teaching assistant. Being a TA means that travel during the semester is problematic, as you are likely expected to be present for all course sessions and avoidable reasons for absence (like personal travel) are frowned upon.
University-level education in the US is not monolithic - every institution will have their own policies and structure, but a common structure is to have a fall semester from September to early/mid December, followed by a break of a month or so, with courses resuming for Spring semester mid/late January and continuing to early May. Undergraduates may have a week off during Spring (typically March or April), and a few days around US Thanksgiving (4th Thursday of November). Summers can be complicated funding- and responsibility-wise, as you may either more or less have the summer "off" or may be busy teaching an additional semester.
PhD students do not typically have specified "vacation days" the way ordinary employees do, but you'll want to coordinate your vacation time with your PhD advisor at least. This is certainly a question you should ask when interviewing with prospective graduate programs: "I would like to visit my family in my home country during my PhD; what are the opportunities and limits on taking time off to travel?" is a very valid question to ask, and anyone who reacts negatively to such a reasonable request is not someone you want to work with.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know anything about the visa you may be granted to study in the US, so purely a calendar answer:
There are traditionally three vacation periods in the US academic calendar:
* The end-of-year **holiday break**, centered around Christmas, Hanukah and New Year's. This may be a couple of weeks or longer than a month.
* **Spring break**: Usually a week long, sometime in March or April. This can be a great time to escape miserably cold universities.
* **Summer break**: While most PhD students are not "off" in the summer, it is easier to travel because taking and teaching classes is less common. Summer break usually lasts from May or June to August or September. Many conferences take place in the summer, however.
Some universities also give a whole week off for American [Thanksgiving](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_States)) or have a week-long fall break, but this is less common. Many Americans travel home for Thanksgiving, which may complicate or even make a trip home easier.
That said, if you are not doing research that requires your presence, or are able to take classes virtually, PhD programs can be very flexible in allowing you to continue your studies and work while not in your city. However, the pay is probably not high enough to allow you to take many trips home (especially since Georgia isn't a huge travel destination for Americans like say, London or Paris).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: #### Yes, you can visit family; you will have annual leave in your program
I have no experience with US programs, so I base my answer here on information in the sample of leave policies in [this related question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11336/). A standard PhD program provides annual leave that can be used at the discretion of the candidate. You can review the PhD rules at specific universities of interest to you to see how much annual leave they provide. In the linked question there is some discussion of the average amount of annual leave in a PhD program in the US, so it may aid your understanding of common levels of entitlement.
Additionally, in current circumstances it is becoming common in the professions to have "hybrid work" where workers do some of their work remotely. Depending on your field of study and your advisor, it might be possible for you to do some of your candidature remotely, at least for small periods. Once you have an advisor in mind, you can inquire into options for working on your candidature remotely for relatively small periods to augment your leave entitlement and give you some additional time with family. Bear in mind that this option would depend heavily on whether your advisor approves, so it is really a conversation that you would need to have with specific advisors during the application process; you should also be careful to ensure that potential advisors are aware of your overall commitment to the candidature.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: You specified Georgia as your home country and unfortunately I don't know what kind of student visa you will get but this can be an issue.
From personal experience graduate students from Western Europe had 5 year visas that allowed unlimited entries and exits to the US, so for them there were no visa considerations.
However students from China or Iran only got 1 year visas which include the possibility to stay in the US after the 1 year is over but not the possibility to leave and reenter. This meant that these students had to reapply for a new visa every time they went home. The Chinese students regularly 'took the risk' to go home and most of the time got a new visa without problems, although some had to stay in China longer than they intended before the new visa was available. The Iranian student did not dare to travel home because he was unsure whether he would be granted a new visa.
So carefully check the conditions on your visa before you do travel plans.
**Edit from comments:** It seems to be [official policy](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/Visa-Reciprocity-and-Civil-Documents-by-Country/Georgia.html) that Georgians students should get 5 year visa. If you indeed have such a visa you do not have to worry about this issue.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: **tl;dr** The US makes it significantly more difficult to visit home than most other countries.
---
In most countries, the *visa* is the document that grants you the permission to: (1) enter the country and (2) stay within the country. The US is unusual in that these two things are separated. A US visa is only for *entering* the country. Many students find themselves in the situation that they do have the authorization to *stay and study* in the US, but their visa is expired. Thus once they leave the country, they must apply for a new visa before they can return.
Citizens of some countries typically get visas with short validity (1 year). In practice, they must apply for a new visa each time they go home. It is not guaranteed that the new visa will be granted. Therefore, the visa application can be stressful, and can take time away from your holidays.
I have seen cases where the visa was initially denied, and the student was unable to return to the US for some time.
I have seen cases where people did not leave the US because of the difficulty and risk in obtaining a new visa.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/19
| 511
| 2,261
|
<issue_start>username_0: Assuming one submits a paper to an academic journal where the editor is positively or negatively biased towards you, what can they do to affect the odds of the paper getting accepted? An ideal answer would include links to academic research attempting to quantify the prevalence/effect of such bias.<issue_comment>username_1: I would guess that an editor with a vendetta against an individual or group could be successful in the short term but would probably cease to be an editor if they generate frequent complaints that are well founded.
However, an editor has a lot of influence over what gets published as they (possibly as part of a group) are the decision makers, not the reviewers. An evil editor could probably cook up rational sounding stuff to "justify" a rejection and it might work a few times. Unlike reviewers, editors are known to authors.
Even uniformly positive referee reports aren't a guarantee of getting published, but if their recommendations are ignored referees will want to know why.
As to "acceptance rates", it is much more unlikely since that assumes long term fairly frequent intervention. Most authors don't publish enough in a single journal to have this come in to play.
But, if you think something is fishy complain about it. Go above the editor if needed. But have some evidence of bias. Bias is bad for scholarship and bad for journals publishing it.
There is also the following effect. If an editor rejects a good paper or accepts junk it will be noticed by the community and the journal administration. In the former case because that good paper probably gets published elsewhere boosting the reputation of that other journal. Again, if it happens rarely (as it does) no one notices, but frequent occurrences will get noticed.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Editors don't "affect the odds", they literally decide it. If they want to stop a publication, they can even if all the reviewers say "accept". Similarly, if they want to publish something, they can even if all the reviewers say "reject".
So if the editor is biased against you, best you can do is ask them to recuse and let another editor handle the paper. If that's not possible, you are screwed.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/20
| 488
| 1,985
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does a instructor have to specify whether or not they accept late assignments? Only now, after three years of college, have I encountered a professor who does not explicitly state his policy for late assignments. Neither on the course outline nor in person. I would like to know if it is strongly suggested that professors set a policy on late assignments. Moreover, does the lack of a late work policy subject the instructor to the risk of students claiming ignorance?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Does a instructor have to specify whether or not they accept late assignments?
>
>
>
No. If an assignment is described as being due by a certain date, then In the absence of any statements to the contrary, you should assume that will not be accepted after the due date. That’s basically implicit in the meaning of “due” and does not need to be stated explicitly, unless the university has a policy requiring this.
>
> does the lack of a late work policy subject the instructor to the risk of students claiming ignorance?
>
>
>
Perhaps, but I doubt that’s something the professor is worried about, or that claiming ignorance would get you anywhere.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the UK, this would generally be a decision made at the University or programme level, rather than by individual instructors. There would generally be a duty to publicize the policy, but only via a webpage or student handbook, and again not applying to instructors. To pick an example (found by Googling regulations for a couple of likely institutions) Bristol University has [a regulation](http://www.bristol.ac.uk/academic-quality/assessment/regulations-and-code-of-practice-for-taught-programmes/penalties/)
>
> 17.3 Students must be made aware of the existence of penalties for not meeting submission deadlines in the relevant school or faculty handbook.
>
>
>
The following regulations describe the actual penalty itself.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/20
| 668
| 2,826
|
<issue_start>username_0: I finished my Ph.D. recently and I am about to submit my thesis but I have copied a few lines from the discussion and results from my own papers. Will it be considered plagiarism? Can I exclude my papers while running Ithenticate software or should I contact springer nature and ask for permission?
Please let me know if I need to quote text copied from my paper.<issue_comment>username_1: It is technically plagiarism but not of the type that will get you in serious trouble. They are your words, after all. But you can very simply mitigate this - just quote yourself and cite the paper. Or, rephrase it. The rule is in place to prevent one from appropriating others’ work as their own
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Apparently the copyright of the earlier work is held by Springer (or another). That implies that you need to treat the work like any other copyrighted work, though you hold a certain license from them for certain uses (typical case). You need to abide by that license.
You would be best to quote and cite the earlier work, which I can't see as being a problem in a dissertation. Straight up copying with no indication that it is copied could be seen by those judging your thesis as improper self plagiarism.
Note that copyright and plagiarism are distinct. The former is governed by (usually civil) law and the latter usually only by custom (with some exceptions unlikely to apply to self plagiarism).
The license from the copyright holder is probably generous enough that you can quote and cite longer passages than you could from the work of another but that doesn't solve the (self)plagiarism issue.
Note that self plagiarism is an issue because reader of a scholarly text wants the complete context of the ideas to be readily available. Some of that context is only in the earlier papers, so you want to keep in clean and clear.
---
Caveat: I'm assuming that the "few lines" contain significant information pertinent to the conclusions. A few lines of "filler" not essential to the whole is probably inconsequential.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I quote Springer's policy about how author should reuses their own articles in their thesis. You may check it yourself.
"Authors have the right to reuse their article’s Version of Record, in whole or in part, in their own thesis. Additionally, they may reproduce and make available their thesis, including Springer Nature content, as required by their awarding academic institution. Authors must properly cite the published article in their thesis according to current citation standards.
Material from: 'AUTHOR, TITLE, JOURNAL TITLE, published [YEAR], [publisher - as it appears on our copyright page]’ "
Website is here: <https://www.springer.com/gp/rights-permissions/obtaining-permissions/882>
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/20
| 718
| 2,963
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am completing my PhD in Chemical Engineering at one of the best universities in Latin America. I was also a visiting scholar at a university in the US during my PhD studies. However, Brazil has recently had one of its highest budget cuts in research grants and scholarships. Many academics are leaving Brazil because of it. I have seen people with a PhD degree from Latin America coming to the US to work as postdoc researchers, but I have not yet seen one hired either as a researcher or on a tenure-track position.
After completing my PhD in Brazil, I am considering applying for a PhD program in the US because I have heard that it may be tough to find an opportunity in the US holding “only” a PhD degree from Latin America. Does it make sense, or do I have a misconception on that? Would it be wise to apply for a second PhD in the US, after having a PhD degree from another country?<issue_comment>username_1: Try expanding your options, and apply to institutions in other countries. They're all good, and in terms of pay or quality of life, some could be much better than the US. Places such as Canada, Australia, Europe, or the Middle eastern gulf states (UAE, Qatar; contrary to popular belief they're great places to live).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Working toward a US doctorate seems to me like a sub-optimal plan. You already have a good degree (or will soon) and it has taught you what a doctoral program is supposed to teach. I see the following issues.
You might not get accepted to a doctoral program, not because you aren't worthy, but because slots are limited and others have greater need of what any program offers.
You delay your career by about three years without really getting much of any benefit other than some association with a US institution. But you already have that from your visiting scholar days.
The future is unknown and there is no guarantee that it will go easier for you in a few years. These are hard times for new scholars in US across many fields, though I know nothing of yours. Public support for education here is also weak, but perhaps not as bad as Brazil currently.
My suggestion is that you apply for whatever positions you are qualified for wherever you can (US or other). See what sort of reception you get. Your writing implies you are fluent in English so that won't be an issue.
When you do a search, make it a broad one. The US has a lot of colleges and universities. The all have somewhat unique missions. Don't focus only on "top" schools, which is an ill-defined concept in any case.
Being a bit "different" can be a strength if you make it so.
Try to exploit relationships in US that you already have from past associations. Get good letters of recommendation from professors/colleagues. Be clear about your career plans.
Think of another degree here only as a (deep) backup plan, not a real goal. The advantage it would give is, IMO, minimal.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/20
| 436
| 1,812
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted a paper and both reviewers stated that the work is very well-written, novel, very well-done etc., and asked only some very easy questions. After I sent the revised version, on the same day both reviewers completed their review report (I could see the status on the tracking system). So based on the previous positive comments, and the short time for them to complete the second review, I assumed they accepted the article. It has been 2 weeks now and still the editor did not send us their decision. I am giving birth in a couple of weeks and I really need to handle this before my due date. What should I do? Is it wise to send them an email stating the reason I am in a hurry for the editor's decision?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I am giving birth in a couple of weeks and I really need to handle
> this before my due date
>
>
>
First: congratulations!
Second: do not let being a mother completely define you. You will still be a scientist, although with a seriously impaired agenda (don't worry, it is really so, it would be stupid to claim otherwise and it will be even more stupid to discriminate you on that basis).
Third: even if the paper is accepted tonight, it is quite likely the paper will still require minimal editing and input from you for the final version in 3/4 weeks. You may still find the time to do that or you may delegate one of the co-authors to do that, maybe prepare them to be able to work with the processed data and the needed plotting scripts?
All the best for your future!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Two weeks is plenty of time to make a decision, so feel free to nudge the editor (especially since "I am giving birth soon and won't be available for a while" is a reason most people will empathize with).
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/09/20
| 693
| 2,951
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was recently asked to review a paper. I liked the paper a lot and eventually recommended it for publication after minor revisions. The paper inspired me to do further research on some questions motivated by the paper. I did the research parallel to writing the report and quickly made progress (theoretical field, i.e., no experiments, etc.) I have now returned my report, and my research should be submitted/preprint-ready in 2-3 weeks.
Ethically, I think there is no problem. There is a preprint version of the paper that I refereed, so I did not use "insider knowledge" to advance my research. Also, the problems that I tackled were substantial and separate from the original paper, so there is nothing to ask the authors to add to their paper.
However, I am now pondering the timing of submitting/disseminating the preprint of my work. Should I (morally speaking) wait until the original paper is published? Until it is accepted (editor's decision still outstanding)? Also, should I submit to the same venue, or will this be met with disfavour?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Also, should I submit to the same venue or will this be met with disfavour?
>
>
>
Submitting to the same venue may actually have some salutary effects here, insofar as it makes acceptance of the other person's paper all the more likely. If you write to the editor to say that you are doing your own paper building on this work, and will be citing that work, then it acts as evidence of immediate impact to the previous paper. I see no reason that would be met with disfavour --- surely an editor would be thrilled to see that a paper submitted to their journal (and perhaps being published) is generating interest that leads to follow-up papers and citations.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In principle, you should have judged the paper under review and limit your brain to that. Unfortunately, we are humans and our brain does not work in tight compartment, so there was some crosspollination between your current work and the work under review (please note: working on the same issue made your review even more valuable, so you actually provided a *good* service to the authors and their work under review).
An honest way of proceeding would be to *delay* your pre-print or paper submission.
Why?
You worked on questions that were triggered by the paper under review. How long did you work on them? let's say 67 days. Now you have just to wait the publication of the paper you reviewed, read the paper, wait 67 days more, submit your manuscript for peer review.
This way may look inefficient, but the only reason you feel guilty, is because you had privileged access to the paper (and you were "forced" to look at it with great attention because of your peer-reviewer role). Removing the priviliged access, your work is ... normal science: your goal is the expansion (or the confutation :D) of someone else work.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/20
| 1,551
| 6,600
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a Ph.D. student who has recently become aware of several health and safety hazards in my lab, which I have been unable to address with my supervisor/other lab members. These hazards include alphabetical storage of chemicals (ignoring chemical compatibility), leakage/spillage of chemicals in storage, large quantities of waste being stored in the lab for years at a time, contaminated items being left unlabelled in fume hoods for years at a time among others (I don't want to be too specific in case it could be identifiable).
The university is aware of some of these issues (not all, and in my opinion, not the worst), but there has been little progress in remedying the problem. Undergraduates and postgraduates use this lab.
I feel I am responsible for reporting these issues to the Health and Safety department. Still, I'm worried about retribution from my supervisor - I wouldn't want to be fired for this. Additionally, if the lab is shut down, this is likely to have significant negative impacts on some other Ph.D. students working there.
What would you suggest I do? On the one hand, it is a health and safety hazard. On the other, I wouldn't want to risk my position and the other Ph.D. students working in the lab. The university is already aware of some of the issues. Should I report my concerns to the university?
Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> if the lab is shut down this is likely to have significant negative
> impacts on a number of other PhD students
>
>
>
Sure, if you leave the lab be managed as it is now, on the other hand, a good percentage of PhD students will think that it is ok to manage dangerous stuff careless and disrespecting rules, because they are (or they become) self-entitled doing more important things than respecting stupid bureaucracy on how to store plutonium and fluoridic acid. They are *PhDs* after all, expert-to-be on the subject, and they may even become **professor**, if all things fall in place.
What do you prefer, a negative impact now on them, or a negative impact on society allowing this way of thinking (rules are there for a reason, quite often to protect one from oneself, rather than from the others).
Do yourself a favour: you are a good guy that discovered a number of issues, anybody not complaining is already impacting negatively YOU and a number of honest people.
The same people running the lab this way, supposedly for the greater good of science and consequently of humanity and not for their personal benefit, are doing a disservice to the same humanity at large they claim they are working for.
And being the managers lab or users, they are actually doing a lot for their personal benefits.
So yes, report to the university, but first contact a lawyer.
You have to protect yourself and you want to report the violations in the most specific and bureaucratic way possible, please remember that you are going to act against the lab manager and therefore against the university, not for the university.
In the Netherlands they say:
`hoge bomen vangen veel wind`
Good luck and please remember that the best success is how at peace you are with yourself, not how many succesful papers you churned out while working in dangerous conditions (unless you have an enormous ego that can be at peace only by churning out humongous papers working in dangerous conditions :) ).
PS and side note: regarding safety culture in the UK, [an interesting andeoctal point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire) ... maybe there is a foundation acting in the name of John Cockcroft that may help/support you?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Although you say that the university is aware of some of these issues, sometimes action on these matters depends on telling the right people. In particular, if you have not yet told the relevant Health and Safety officers at the university then that might be the reason that no remedial action has been taken. I recommend you report these matters to the Health and Safety office at the university immediately. Indeed, if you have a look at the university policy, there is a good chance that it imposes an obligation on its workers to report safety issues to the Health and Safety office.
Shutting down a lab temporarily to deal with a safety hazard is an annoyance, but it is important to remedy safety problems and could save someone from being seriously injured or killed. If the lab were to be shut permanently as a result of the issue, that would presumably reflect serious safety problems that present a danger to people, or repeated breaches of safety rules. Either way, reporting the issue is appropriate and it is your responsibility to report.
>
> I feel as though I have a responsibility to report these issues to the Health and Safety department, but I'm worried about retribution from my supervisor...
>
>
>
If that is the case then you have big problems --- any supervisor who would retaliate against a lab worker for reporting safety concerns to the university is a menace, and if you are in an environment where that is a possibility then it reflects serious dysfunction at your university. Most occupational health and safety laws prohibit retaliation against workers for reporting safety issues, and in some jurisdictions retaliation against workers in these circumstances can even constitute a criminal offence. In addition to protections in OHS laws, there are also specific provisions for whistleblowers in circumstances where workers suffer retaliation for reporting safety problems.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Depending on your location, there may be a union representing University staff - for example, in the UK it would be [UCU](https://www.ucu.org.uk/) for academic staff, [Unite](https://www.unitetheunion.org/) for technical support staff and [Unison](https://www.unison.org.uk/) for clerical staff. Any of these would have specialised Health and Safety reps.
Importantly, unions are used to situations where the employer may not be acting entirely in their staff’s best interest (such as your observation that the University is aware of some violations but turning a blind eye) and will probably be more discreet and understanding of your conundrum. They may also have prior experience of dealing with similar situations and could give you an idea of what the University’s reaction would be depending on which action you choose.
Unions may not be able to act on your behalf unless you are a member, but in most places you should be able to at least speak informally with a rep.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/20
| 1,776
| 7,763
|
<issue_start>username_0: I need help to avoid any potential academic misconduct regarding ongoing research. It is a bit complex. Let me explain the situation. It is not related to my Ph.D. thesis.
I am an international Ph.D. student starting in February 2022. Before starting my Ph.D., I found a public dataset and conceptualized a research question. Then I did all the required analyses, achieved the results, and prepared a draft paper with only an introduction and material methods. Then it was time to come to start my Ph.D. So, I thought I would no longer have time to complete my paper.
So, I invited a person (from another University) to contribute to writing the paper. I accepted him as the first author and was the second author (with equal contribution to the first author). I also was the corresponding author. So, he wrote results and discussions and prepared the paper for submission.
We submitted the work to a journal. It was rejected, but we were encouraged to re-submit the paper to the same journal once we addressed all the requested revisions.
So, I re-do the analyses and sent the results to him to apply the revisions. Then, a conflict occurred between us, and now, he claims that since he has an intellectual property to the results of this research, I cannot publish the paper without his consent. However, as I mentioned earlier, I started the study, conceptualized the research question, and did all the analyses, and he just contributed to writing the paper.
So, I would like two questions to be answered. 1) Can I publish this paper without consent? and 2) Does he have intellectual property on my results? What if I want to re-write the paper and not use his writings?<issue_comment>username_1: There is no "law" on what one can and can't do in academia regarding unpublished work. There is no single *code of academia* that works similarly across the globe. Academia is not uniform. Academic reality is often not fair. Depending on their position in academic hierarchy and local customs in their Department/University/country, some people get away with doing something, some are promoted and celebrated, and some have their career ruined for doing more or less the same thing.
The rule of thumb is: try not to do things to others which you won't enjoy been done to you. Ask yourself the following questions: What would I feel if my co-author published our collaborative research without me? Do I have intellectual property on these results?
Now, flip the sides for a moment and look at the situation from your collaborator's eyes. What did they contribute to the research which justifies their role as an author? What would it mean for them to be sidelined and removed from the publication at this stage?
Please, consider talking to your co-author and find a compromise, which allows you to publish the paper together. If this is not possible, discuss as adults, how to move forward with the results you have. You may agree to bury all the research and move forward, or maybe to split it in some sensible way, or maybe invite a third person to the party to help you pick up the pieces and moderate things between you. Whatever you decide to do, write the decision down and respect it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally speaking you need the consent of all "authors" to publish with a reputable publisher. They will insist on it.
To avoid plagiarism, it might be impossible to "remove" them as an author. It isn't *just* a question of their "words" and what they "wrote", but what ideas they contributed to the whole. If their ideas are still included, their intellectual contribution, and you don't acknowledge that, then you are committing plagiarism.
You don't describe the nature of the conflict, but you need to resolve it. Removing the "first" author from a publication would be noticed and likely questioned.
However, he doesn't own your intellectual property, nor do you own his. It may be too late to try to separate them. I suggest that you err on the side of caution here.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Since this person has contributed to the paper, sufficiently to have previously been offered authorship, it seems to me that it would be improper for him not to get authorship credit on the paper if it is published. At the same time, it is also improper to hold a paper hostage by refusing to make further contribution but also refusing to allow the other person to work on it and publish it. As [Dmitry](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17418/) points out in his answer, this is primarily a matter of academic custom and research ethics rather than law.
If you are at loggerheads in conflict, I recommend you try to negotiate a way forward that ends in joint publication of the paper, with each of you making whatever contributions need to be mae to finish. If you cannot agree, it might be worthwhile to consider having another academic act as a mediator and making a binding determination on the way forward.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: TLDR: You can't and shouldn't publish without his signature. Either him signing that he agrees to be removed as the author, or him signing that he agrees to submit the paper with his name on it.
He cannot publish this work in any way because you came up with the idea and analysis. Your contributions were yours, he cannot take them.
You cannot publish this work as long as there is some of his work remaining in it. His contributions were his, you cannot take them.
You might see that you simply need to rework his wording and you are done. But even if you actually manage to rewriting everything without his words, ideas etc - who can tell that you completely eliminated all of his contributions? That none of his text and ideas remained? He was the first author in the submission system - this implies he did a lot of work. If he was 5th you might get by with something along "oh, he did some analysis in the v1 and we replaced it all in v2 because he was a troublemaker". Here you cannot. Most journals will err on the side of caution and see tons of red lights in your case. Typical journal policy is "any author change must be accompanied by signatures of all (past and present) authors" - but of course there are differences to what degree they ultimately adhere to it.
If you two cannot solve the conflict and you still really want to publish, seemingly one way to sidestep issues with journal would be to submit elsewhere that doesn't know of v1 with his authorship. **DO NOT DO THIS.** If you get any repeated reviewer that notices author changes, your submission will be blocked outright; or worse. But even if it gets through, that author could show he was the first author in rejected version of the same paper to your university and the journal where you published. This will be a lot of trouble for you from both - even including getting paper retracted and kicked out of the university. Even if he doesn't do it right away, do you want that possibility hanging over your head forever?
There are stories (including on this site) where a senior professor and/or a distinguished researcher got away with what you want - removed the student that did all the work and submitted as him being the sole author. Yeah, in that case journal and university might opt to side with the well-known professor that a student was a troublemaker, so the professor opted to redo all the work himself. They might not actually believe the story, but see it is easier for them to pretend they do believe it. But you are a mere PhD student, this strategy has 0% chance of working for you - your university and the journal will prefer to protect themselves and throw you under the bus in the light of serious misconduct.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/09/20
| 2,576
| 10,553
|
<issue_start>username_0: How to proceed with my PhD? I'm 18 months into it, but I don't see this project going anywhere.
Perhaps I didn't do my due diligence or researched the position before accepting it. I'm working in a team with half a dozen other PhD's, and the "research" focuses on extending and improving an extensive software system. Thus, I'm not working independently and depend on my colleagues and professor.
The professor thinks it will revolutionize our field, but that is nonsense. The few articles my colleagues have published are either conference papers or on arXiv. Much of it is equations and "fancy words" that hide the lack of novelty. I don't know if my colleagues know it or if they are cynics and don't care. Perhaps they are just here for their PhDs. To boot, the system is old, and much of my time is spent bug fixing lousy code written by PhDs who left many years ago. I feel cheated. I was promised cutting-edge research, but this is not it. Some of you will probably say that I'm not "understanding" the research. At first, I thought so too. But it's been 18 months, so I understand now that there is nothing to understand.
Everything else about the job is excellent. Both my colleagues and
professor are friendly and caring people. But they are perhaps not
that "sharp."
I don't know what to do. I don't want to cause any conflict and
perhaps become a pariah in the office, but I don't want to waste my
time. I have ideas for the research I want to do, but I don't
want to offend everyone. I don't want to quit my PhD because I want to work in science.<issue_comment>username_1: It seems you only have two choices: discussing the issue with your supervisor/advisor or switching schools, both of which are risky. Try first talking with your advisor about your issue and see if you could possibly switch supervisors or get advice from them that way, or you could talk to your professor themselves, saying something like "my research interest is in \_\_\_\_ not \_\_\_\_\_\_, and this project does not work for me, so I want to switch to another professor as my supervisor". Alternatively, you could wait a year and apply next year to other universities. I don't believe they'll view your leaving mid degree as a bad thing, tho I think there's a thread on here that could give you more info on that. This time check the faculty's pages to see if they're more aligned with your interests instead of just going with whoever. Fill the time till next year by applying to grants and other awards, they look good on your CV, they'll help you get into the other schools easier, and they'll help you financially.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If a substantial part of your research community thinks the approach "will revolutionize the field", then a sufficiently deep analysis of the reasons why it's "going nowhere" might, in itself, constitute a substantial original contribution to knowledge that gets you the PhD pass. That was essentially the nature of my thesis 20 years ago: it didn't make me popular, but it did make me a doctor.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: First things first: In your country, there must be laws regulating Ph.D. programs and outlining what the requirements for completing such a program are. It can go along the lines of:
* Demonstrating knowledge and application of research methods
* Demonstrating independence in research work
* Creating publishable work
* Presenting original results in domestic and international venues
Knowing these requirements can help you to gauge if your day-to-day work helps to advance towards the degree or not.
It helps to have a mentor or a broader examination board helping to gauge your progress towards said requirements.
Improving existing software and bug fixing does not sound like publishable work at all. At least not in the fields of software engineering and computer science. A novel and publishable work would be, for example, the development of a new algorithm. It would make sense to demonstrate the use of the algorithm with a simple implementation. However, anything beyond that is development work, not research.
Are there any other research groups or Ph.D. students that you can approach and gauge if you would like to work with them? If you raise any concerns, they should be about the supervision/topic falling short of the minimum bar, not your dislike of fixing bugs.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It's strange that nobody has explicitly mentioned it, but I think you should start with clearly understanding your own goals. Why do you study for PhD and what are you further career goals?
Is it just get a PhD badge and switch to industry?
Is it get a PhD and move to another "average" group?
Get a PhD and then move to a top-level group or get a position in a top-level university?
Etc.
In some of these goals (at least in the first, maybe in the second too), it does not really matter what is the quality of your research, what matters is a PhD badge. In this case, the next question to ask is very simple: what about PhD students in your group some 3-6 years older that you? Did they get their PhD? Based on what work? What do they do now? You may find that they did get a PhD with a work similar to what you are doing. In this case you have pretty good chances to get a PhD too, and that's all that matter.
In fact, sadly, in many parts of the world there are tons of really weak PhD awarded. In many places the *majority* of all PhDs are no novelty at all and are "hopeless" as research. Obviously, a good student should do some due diligence and avoid such places, but if you got as deep as 18 months into this program, it may be better to complete it and move on. Even such a PhD may be useful depending on your goals.
For example, I think that in industry they will not care what your research was, and moreover they will be pretty aware that there are many places like yours, and that it's not you to blame. Similarly, many "average" research groups in your city or uni may also be well aware of this, and will not judge your PhD research, but will judge your skills. So after you get a PhD, you may be able to switch to a better group and start a real research.
At the same time, if you plan to apply for some relatively top-level research group or position, then they will judge you by your work. In this case you need to get better research now. You may try discussing it with your advisor, although personally I don't think it will get any good results, or you need to switch advisor or PhD program in general.
So, think of your goals, study the careers of PhD students from your group who are 3-6 years older than you, and after that decide.
Of course, you may find that there were no PhD students in your group in recent years, or at least no successful students. That, combined with what you wrote in the question, is a very bad sign. In this case, your advisor most probably does not know what you should do to get a PhD (both formal and informal requirements), and with a very weak research you probably will not be able to figure it out yourself. In this case, run away from this advisor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Many (most?) PhDs go through "second-year-blues". Essentially:
* at the beginning the PhD candidate doesn't know enough to know the problems
* then they learn what the problems are and realise that they are hard
and the topic is even more difficult than they thought
* but they usually scrape something out of it by the end (which is almost never revolutionary and may in fact be "here are the problems")
Sure, there are always some people who have amazing rockstar PhDs (as with any walk of life) but the vast majority are grains of sand standing
on the shoulders of giants. In a way, research is a fractal
[Dunning-Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). I was super pleased to discover that 1 person has read and cited my thesis, even if they were another PhD student of my supervisor.
After 18 months software engineering experience, regardless of getting a PhD or not, you're well equipped for a career in tech (science-related or otherwise). "I want to work in science" covers many, many things besides the stereotypical view of professors (which don't exist because they spend most of their time on grants or papers or teaching or administration or other "not science" activity). And if you think about it, many many PhDs graduate every year but the turnover in academics is much much lower. So a large majority of PhDs must not become professors and that's fine.
TL;DR think about **what day-to-day bits you like the most**; coding, maths, presenting, reading, etc. If you can **do more of that** and your PhD, great. If not, then that's fine too and perfectly normal.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/apzmx.png)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: "Second-year-blues" quoted by @username_5 is the first thought I have when reading your situation. However, pointless projects also exist. An external input from a mentor not involved in your research group and not connected with your PhD, but knowking computer science and the academic world, would probably be highly welcome to better understand your situation.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: Every research team define specific roles and objectives for each member. Your part does not seem exciting. But the problem is regarding whether you are getting your PhD or not. I believe it is not hard to asses your situation:
1. Is there sufficient literature and articles (references) to support your project? Is it so "ground-breaking", as your professor believes? Could you prove you are contributing to the state-of-the-art in the project's corresponding field?
2. Based on those mentioned above, "few articles on conferences and arXiv" seems like a red flag. For example, my PhD program demands me to be the corresponding (first) author of two articles in world-class publications where the sum of their Q is five at most. That is, at least one Q2 and one Q3. That is not trivial since, at those quartiles, a thorough peer review process is expected to demand original contributions to the current state of knowledge. In my case, each research team member in their area should deliver two top-notch articles of original contributions as corresponding authors. Fixing bugs and a 5th or 6th place in the author's list won't get me anywhere. Is that your case in your PhD program?
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/20
| 889
| 3,804
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student in mathematics. I have worked on a project and wrote a paper. A reputed old mathematician, who is not my supervisor but is an excellent and friendly human, in my opinion, consistently helped me to write the paper. I am about to submit the paper to a journal. When I offered authorship, the mathematician politely said that giving acknowledgment (in the acknowledgment section) in the paper would be enough.
So I have decided to acknowledge. But I am also thinking of dedicating to the mathematician's birthday on the paper's front page.
Is it normal to dedicate a paper to the birthday of someone who contributed to it? Or should I mention the contribution in the acknowledgment part?<issue_comment>username_1: I think paper "dedications" are rare. A statement in the ack portion would be more common and probably sufficient. I've dedicated books to such people, though after they died, however.
But "I want to thank X for many many fruitful discussions on the material here and their guidance when things got hard." is pretty strong. Add another sentence about what a wonderful person they are and it will be over the top.
Note that in math it is common that advisors who contribute a lot to dissertations don't normally expect co-authorship or special thanks. "Just part of the job."
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: An acknowledgement is a perfectly good way to show your gratitude to this mathematician, particularly if he does not want coauthorship. It would be odd to dedicate a paper to the birthday of another mathematician, if only because birthdays for adults aren't really a big deal anyway, and they have nothing to do with the process of research. I recommend you write a nice acknowledgement and get an experienced scholar to read it to make sure it is sufficiently flattering without going too far overboard.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: There's the aspect of field etiquette, that username_1 and username_2 have already addressed: it's common to express these thanks in the "acknowledgements" section of the paper, which exists precisely for this reason. It's uncommon to "dedicate" a paper, except for unusual circumstances (like username_1, I have only seen this done for the death of a mentor) and I have never seen an example of a "birthday dedication". I would personally find such a dedication odd and perhaps suspect that the junior researcher is trying to emphasise their connection with the old, respected mentor for personal exposure.
But there's a more relevant aspect which applies to you specifically: you have asked this mathematician how they would like to be recognised for their help, by offering them authorship, and they have *specified their preference*, which is to be mentioned in the acknowledgement section. If you wish to express your gratitude to this person, the best way is always to respect their explicit wishes, rather than override them.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is it normal to dedicate a paper to the birthday of someone who contributed to it?
>
>
>
It is neither normal nor welcome (or acceptable).
>
> Or should I mention the contribution in the acknowledgment part?
>
>
>
A friend of mine turned around my PhD over a dinner. She came out with a brilliant idea that triggered a new field of research (this was a fresh, promising topic that was not applied yet to my area of research). While her comment was maybe 10 seconds long, it influenced a lot the direction I decided to take.
I was extremely grateful to her and put her first in the acknowledgment section, before the advisor, staff, wife, parents, and dog. This was **the** mark of respect that is expected, nothing more, nothing less.
Please do not make him feel weird.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/20
| 1,323
| 5,163
|
<issue_start>username_0: Instances of discrimination and/or bullying are common in academia. Here are some examples from [BzH](https://www.bzh.bayern.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Beitraege_zur_Hochschulforschung/2021/2021-1-2-Lasser-Bultema-Jahn-Loeffler.pdf), [Elephant in the Lab.org](https://elephantinthelab.org/manifestations-of-power-abuse-in-academia-and-how-to-prevent-them/), [Science](https://www.science.org/content/article/academic-bullying-too-often-ignored-here-are-some-targets-stories), [Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06040-w), [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/nov/03/why-bullying-thrives-higher-education), and [Guardian again](https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/dec/11/bad-phd-supervisors-can-ruin-research-so-why-arent-they-accountable).
Is there any place where such incidents be reported? Preferably outside of the university system, since universities would naturally have a conflict of interest.<issue_comment>username_1: In my opinion, **there is no way to achieve any such *fair* venue** to record mishandling of students. The reason are as follows:
* This is *not* unique at all to universities; mishandling can occur in any work environment.
* There is no way to assure the **fairness** of the recorded instances. Since human civilization has invented and developed the concept of **due process** precisely for handling all such conflicts between parties, and the states/countries are the authorities that invest money and build the infrastructure for maintaining all aspects of fairness and due process (the legal system), there is basically no way (at this point in time) to replace it with websites purporting to "expose" mishandling of students or employees by professors and employers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Many universities have a standard process to handle these cases. I agree with you that one of the considerations students *should* make when picking a graduate school is the existence of a strong student support system, and options for recourse against bad advisor behavior. Of course, no one ever thinks that this would happen to them, so often enough this is not considered.
Are there websites that "expose" bad professors? Not to my knowledge. However, it is easy enough to find out before applying. I strongly suggest that students talk with existing students of a PI about their advising style, their interaction with the PI, and how much supervision they actually get. If a professor is unwilling to let you speak with their students, then this is a huge red flag.
As @username_1 says, the main issue with the existence of such a website is that it is impossible to ensure that accusations on the website are not frivolous or unfounded. An accusation of misconduct towards one's advisees is a serious matter, and should be treated as such. Often enough, there's no one side that's obviously wrong: students sometimes "disappear" for long stretches of time, ignore the PI's advice on choice of research directions, or are simply not suited for grad school. The tendency of some students is to blame their PI for their failures. Ultimately, the advisor-advisee relationship is very personal.
I have seen instances where an amazing advisor with an excellent track record of successfully graduating students had to drop a certain student because they weren't a good fit, hurting that student's future prospects. Should that professor be held "accountable" for this?
Similarly, I know of advisors who have very abrasive and unpleasant advising styles, but were able to graduate several *stellar* students who are now leaders in my field. Are they on your website?
There are several legal issues with such a website. Posting something so damaging on a public forum may have legal implications for those posting it, at least in the United States. You may have lawyers representing the university, the faculty union (if the professor belongs to one), or the professor coming after you for posting damaging accusations online.
Finally, there is the question of incentives. Suppose that I see that Professor X's former student is now applying for a position in my lab/company, and that they posted a scathing review of Professor X's behavior on your website. Talking with people close to the matter, I get mixed signals - some side with the student, some with Professor X. Would I want to hire this student? Probably not. You might argue that this can be anonymous, but it's really not very difficult to figure out who the poster is - after all, there are only so many people in a research lab, and only so many of them who drop out/are not doing well. Thus, it may not even be in the students' best interest to have these accusations posted online.
To conclude, there is indeed a power imbalance between advisors and students, which both sides should be aware of and treat with great respect. As a student, you should ensure that you know your rights, and that your university has a support system for you to protect them. I don't think that your proposed solution is the best way to handle it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/09/20
| 1,703
| 7,100
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was wondering if one can submit to two conferences/journals, but one is non-archival (e.g., a workshop). My curiosity stems from the NeurIPS experiment showing that the submission process seems highly stochastic, so if the submission does pass the non-archival compliance, I wanted it to go to a workshop at least that is non-archival e.g.
>
> Publication
> Accepted papers and supplementary material will be made available on the workshop website. However, these do not constitute archival publications, and no formal workshop proceedings will be made public, meaning contributors are free to publish their work in archival journals or conferences.
>
>
>
So, is it ethical to submit nearly the same paper twice, but one is archival, and the other is not?
Also, what would one do if it gets accepted by both?
---
Context
=======
Fyi, I know two submissions to archival places are wrong, e.g., [I submitted a paper to two journals, and the first published it, but I agreed to publish in the other; what can I do?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32709/i-submitted-a-paper-to-two-journals-and-the-first-published-it-but-i-agreed-to) but it's confusing given non-archival places like AI workshops.<issue_comment>username_1: This may be a distinction without a meaning. The workshop is telling you that they make no claim, copyright or otherwise, on the material so won't bind your submissions elsewhere. However, it is a form of "publishing".
And if you submit to a journal it is their rules that will apply to whether it will be published there or not. Some journals won't publish things "published" elsewhere, though that is changing and has changed in some fields. If you submit to such a journal after "publishing" the same work elsewhere, they will be unhappy.
There are no laws (that I'm aware of) for such things, but the journals and conferences make their own rules.
It might be safer and more appropriate to submit the paper to a journal snd submit something different, but related to the conference workshop.
Workshops, being more informal, probably accept partial work and work in progress. The point is sharing ideas, not presenting finished work. That is my experience anyway. You can certainly talk about a paper at a workshop with no consequences.
Said another way, the conference gives you permission to publish elsewhere, but a journal may not. It isn't necessarily symmetric. Caution is advised.
---
You can, of course, check with any journal you propose submitting to. Contact the editor and/or read the submission guidelines. If they permit preprint publication (arXiv...) then it is likely they will permit what you would like to do. (likely, not certain)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The workshop clearly states that they are okay with people submitting their workshop submissions to another venue.
If you want to do that, ask the other venue for permission. Show them the quote you showed us. Then, if they are paying attention, they will grant you permission.
The main point is: Don't waste people's time reading the same submission more than is necessary.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This is fairly common, in my experience, at top machine learning (and adjacent) conferences. Usually, the non-archival venue is a workshop attached to some conference, so the repeat submission typically happens in one of the following ways:
1. Early version of paper is submitted to a non-archival workshop A, and then to an archival venue B (e.g. a conference). This could also happen if the paper was first rejected at the main track of the conference which A is attached to.
2. Paper is accepted at main track of a conference (archival), and then submitted to a workshop (non-archival) attached to the same conference, whose focus area is the subfield the paper belongs to. Some workshops may accept such papers without additional review.
3. A previously published paper at an archival venue is later submitted to a workshop that focuses on its subfield.
The idea behind additionally submitting to a non-archival workshop is typically to allow more detailed presentations (e.g. an oral presentation as compared to "just" a poster at a larger conference), more detailed discussions, more visibility for the paper, and to an audience that primarily is from the same subfield (as compared to a broader audience at large conferences).
I am not sure if submitting to an archival and non-archival venue *simultaneously* is common, but I do not see any ethical issues, beyond two primary considerations:
1. As other answers say, you should check the policies of the archival (and non-archival) venue. For example, NeurIPS [allows](https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2022/CallForPapers) submitting papers that have previously appeared in non-archival venues:
>
> Work that has appeared in non-archival workshops, such as workshops at NeurIPS/ICML, may be submitted.
>
>
>
CVPR, on the other hand, [does not](https://cvpr2022.thecvf.com/author-guidelines):
>
> A publication, for the purposes of this policy, is defined to be a written work longer than four pages (excluding references) that was submitted for review by peers for either acceptance or rejection, and, after review, was accepted. In particular, this definition of publication does not depend upon whether such an accepted written work appears in a formal proceedings or whether the organizers declare that such work “counts as a publication”.
>
>
>
Additionally, some venues may allow such submissions in general, but may restrict them during their review period.
2. If the submission to the non-archival venue is after the archival paper has been published (with copyright transfer), you might need to check the policies of the publisher regarding this.
If it gets accepted by both, you will get the chance to present at both. Formal proceedings and copyright transfer would only take place for the archival venue, and that version would typically be considered "canonical" when listing on publication lists and for citing the paper. In particular, assuming the two are nearly identical, you do not get to count them separately in your list of publications.
The question of submitting to arXiv is a orthogonal to this discussion, as arXiv is an archival "venue", more than most non-archival workshops, but by not being peer-reviewed, does not have the ethical concern of wasting reviewer time or questions regarding copyright transfer.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: For [this specific NeurIPS workshop](https://meta-learn.github.io/2022/):
>
> 5. Can a paper be submitted to the workshop that is currently under review or will be under review at a conference during the review phase?
>
>
>
>
> From our side, it is perfectly fine to submit a condensed version of a parallel conference submission if it is also fine for the conference in question. Our workshop does not have archival proceedings, and therefore parallel submissions of extended versions to other conferences are acceptable.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/21
| 515
| 2,310
|
<issue_start>username_0: We submitted our paper and got rejected. Now we want to submit somewhere else. Me (first author) wants to submit the paper as it is, while the corresponding author wants to do further experiments. Is there anything I can do? Who has the last word? Can the corresponding just decide like that, even if the first author disagrees? And would it help me to post the work on a preprint server, and in that case, would I need approval from every co-author to do so, or does the corresponding decide?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally every author needs to agree on a publication; even on a preprint server, as long as their name is on it. Nobody should publish something with your name against your will (which is a good thing), and neither can you publish against the will of the others.
So unfortunately if they insist on doing further work, there is nothing you can do apart from trying to convince them that this is not needed, and that you need this published quickly.
Note however that scientific papers are there in the first place to progress our knowledge, not to make up people's CVs. Your co-author may have good scientific reasons for why they want to do further experiments, and it may improve the quality of the paper (of course based on the given information we here cannot have an opinion on whether this is so). This should be a very good reason to do the additional experiments, and it may well increase the chance of acceptance, which then would also be in your own interest.
I think the most important thing here is communication - you need to tell them your reasons but you also need to understand theirs. They may change their mind, or you may accept that there is some sense in doing the additional work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Two notes to add to the [answer of username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/188970/75368). First it is generally not a good career move to fight with your supervisor (and another PI) whose recommendations you need about as much as you need any single publication. Don't prove yourself a poor collaborator early in your career.
Second, the time to publication of a submission "as is" elsewhere isn't necessarily shorter than doing what the journal suggested and resubmitting. It might even be longer.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/21
| 589
| 2,625
|
<issue_start>username_0: I asked for a recommendation letter from a professor and sent him all the required materials. He agreed to write me the letters, but he also said that he will send me the letters later next week. Is this normal? As far as I know, the content of a recommendation letter should be confidential and should not be read by the student.
What should I do at this moment? Should I tell him not to sent the letters to me but directly to the universities I'm applying to?<issue_comment>username_1: Many professors will share what they write with students even when the expectation is that they are "confidential". I don't have a problem with it as long as the recommender is honest and independent.
I think people might fear that only positive statements will be shared, somehow indicating bias toward the positive. But if a professor feels they need to write negative things, then they really should talk to the student about it before writing/sending any letter. If the professor can't support a student they should be advised of that. It is a way to avoid misunderstandings.
The response could be "thanks", or "thanks but that isn't necessary". Your call.
I was told, years after graduation, that my professor wrote me letters of recommendation, which he didn't share, that he intended to be entirely positive, but the phrasing could be interpreted otherwise. The person who told me (a colleague of the professor) said that it probably caused me a setback. In essence the advisor said that I was probably the world's foremost expert on a topic that some would consider very minor. He meant well but there were some cultural (math culture, actually) considerations that he didn't recognize. Even if he had shared it with his colleague, rather than myself, I might have had a different career trajectory. Just a misunderstanding, but with serious consequences.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the US at least, the issue isn't confidentiality, it's whether the student has waived their right under the law to see the letter. Most schools won't take a letter "seriously" if this isn't the case. But there is absolutely nothing preventing the letter-writer from providing you with the letter anyway, which has no effect on your waiver.
However, the program will probably require that the letter come directly from him and not from you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: He may have a pile of letters to write and hasn’t gotten to yours yet, but I would have been more forthcoming about that. He may also rank his work by due date or incoming date or something else.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/21
| 1,351
| 5,563
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got my Master's degree in mathematics in 2017. Since then, I haven't done a lot of maths, so I am a bit rusty. I am now considering doing a PhD in maths, but I have little-to-no idea for a topic.
I seem to understand that it is not unusual for prospect PhD students to be without a topic at first and be sort of "assigned" one by their supervisor, but I think I would nonetheless benefit from having at least some sort of idea. Ever since I picked up math, I think I've been more drawn to more abstract and theoretical math and not at all to applied math. I am fascinated by number theory problems, and I like algebra so I thought I could do something related to them. My bachelor's thesis was on algebraic topology and my master's thesis about wreath products and the Rubik's cube. However, PhD my topic doesn't necessarily have to be related to these. I can't say I have any preference at this stage, and I'm trying to find one.
I tried to get some inspiration by going to the campus library and checking out different books, but that didn't work well for me. Most books are extremely technical and you can't just flick through one to get a sense of whether you like the subject or not. (More often than not, the title won't even tell you if the book is worth picking up.) I tried googling, reading Wikipedia, etc, but I can't say that helped, either.
What I'm after is some sort of overview that presents problems in different fields, explaining why they're important/intriguing, where we're stuck with them, pointing out connections with other problems or branches of maths. Something that tries to "sell" you a topic, if you will.
I'm not sure such a thing even exists, so any suggestion you might have to help me get an idea will be much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: tl;dr: You just need to read through recently published PhD thesis. If this does not help, if it does not raise minimum interest and "I can do that" thoughts in you, nor motivate you, then you are done: a PhD is not for you ;)
---
In research it is often oversold the concept of *novelty*. And from the exterior, it may even exist the myth of the romantic researcher battling their demons and developing their ideas out of hard work and thin air.
In reality, we stand on the shoulder of giants(Lincoln, 1905). In fact, the capital sin in science is copying without referencing. An even worse sin is referencing without copying, reinventing the wheels and wasting resources on the way.
Therefore, if you want to draw inspiration for your PhD, just look for recent PhD thesis.
It will give you a glimpe of the work that expect you. To give a broad approximation, for every written page you read in a PhD thesis, assume the author wrote 20 pages of notes and probably read (or at least skimmed through) 400 pages of papers, books, conference proceedings, preprints ... then ask yourself: is it really what I want for the next 4 years of my life?
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: In most places it is too early for you to commit to any particular thing. That would be especially true in the US, but also other places to a lesser degree.
I suggest that, at the moment you think about what sorts of math you enjoy doing and have some interest and insight into. It need not be terribly specific. Maybe number theory in your case or some subfield of that. My own narrowing led me to Real Analysis and/or Point-Set Topology (yes, long ago and far away). I ended up with a really nice dissertation in Real Analysis (Last of His Kind).
Next find a university that has a few faculty members with similar interests as evidenced by their publications. Schools with large faculty may automatically serve in some cases, but having a weekly or so "seminar" in some related area is a good sign. Apply there and get accepted.
Now you are in a position to sit down and talk to people in the area who can describe things that you might find interesting. If there are three or four faculty there then you have a good chance of getting inspiration from at least one of them. I talked to a couple of people who claimed not to have any fresh ideas at the time, but recommended me to the "senior" member of the group who took me on.
Some places (US) this is easy to do since the program is a bit longer than others. In other places you need to do this remotely since you may need to find an advisor to get accepted to the program.
But the best source of inspiration is to be somewhat adjacent to a person who can help you.
Mathematics itself is *huge*. There are a *huge* number of possibilities. You can spend too much time searching in this vast space being intrigued by many things. But a knowledgeable person can help you focus, provided that you can narrow the field somewhat. Collaboration is a really good thing in math. Sharing ideas. Inspiring one another.
---
I'll also note that if your proposed topic is too specific and if you are too insistent on that and that alone, it will be harder to find an advisor/supervisor interested enough to take you on. You need some flexibility at this stage and the willingness to compromise enough to get through a degree. There is no need to do something you'd hate, though. But, math is, like I said, *huge*.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think a main source of inspiration can be other academic studies. Particularly in the conclusion part will be a section or a paragraph, that includes suggestions for further/ future studies. You can use these sections to find new topics or advice.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/09/21
| 2,620
| 10,671
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wanted to know if one can get MSc scholarships just by emailing professors from different universities, by showing them that we have some interest and some experience in fields that they have research interests in.
I am thinking mostly about universities in Germany, Australia, and the UK.<issue_comment>username_1: I have received many unsolicited letters of this kind. They are so often clearly from people who have no idea who I am or what I do (despite what they say) that I routinely flag them as spam. So even if your request is truly legitimate, it is unlikely to get any response.
You should simply apply to the schools you are interested in.
I suspect (but do not know) that funding for a Master's degree is rare.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Professors are not in charge of giving or not giving scholarships.
In most cases, universities or organizations are in charge of scholarships.
Here, in México, you can apply to a scholarship once you got accepted into a Master or a PhD program. Of course, budget depends on how relevant and/or important the institution where you're doing it is, as well as your research topic.
You may try asking to people in charge in the university if they have scholarships (for international students, if you're willing to apply in other countries).
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: ***Australia*** as far as I know
**Master of Philosophy (Higher Degree by Research)**
It is important for you to check the website of the universities/institutions where the professors are working. All the information about scholarships will be available there. If you just email them without looking for information yourself, you are wasting their time.
Probably, there will be scholarships designated for specific projects which professors are looking for students. You may contact them to express your interest, and to ask them if they are willing to supervise you. Then you can **proceed with application for the programs and the scholarships**, yet it is worth mentioning that these scholarships are mostly for PhD students.
For general scholarships (many universities offer Master by Research/MPhil scholarships without specifying the eligible programs and projects), in my opinions, it is not appropriate to send emails to potential supervisors solely to ask for Master (by Research) scholarships. You may send emails to them to express your interest, to know more about them, and to know if they are willing to supervise you. If they agree, you (and the potential supervisor(s)) can **proceed with application for the programs and the scholarships**.
Professors are generally **not in charge of giving scholarships even if there will be designated scholarships for potential MPhil/PhD students working on their projects**, yet the support of potential supervisors will influence the chance of getting the scholarships, so the most important step is to convince them to supervise you first. Without this, no scholarship whatsover.
Moreover, make sure that you are eligible to apply for the programs and the scholarships.
**Master by Coursework**
If you are not interested in doing research, and you simply want to apply for a taught master, there will be probably no full (merit-based) scholarship **from most universities**. Probably there will be 50% scholarships from some (good) universities, but the required GPA is really high (min: **6.5 - 6.8/7**). 15-30% scholarships are probably more common (min: 5.5-6/7), but given the high tuition fee and living cost in Australia, I think you already have the answer for this.
For most universities, you can get at most **ONE** merit-based scholarship. There will be top-up scholarships that are worth 500 to a couple of thousands of AUD. Depending on the universities you are applying to, you can get a few top-up scholarships, but there will be a limit.
Professors will probably have **ZERO** influence on these scholarships mentioned above. You just need a good (or more precisely, a ridiculously good) GPA.
There is a prestigious scholarship from the Australian Government (the Australia Award) which covers everything, but you have to go back to your home country and stay there for at least 2 years? after finishing the degree program unless you repay **every buck they give you**. That is a limitation as you cannot apply to any working VISA after graduation (e.g 485), and cannot leave your country for a long period of time during these 2 years, but that is the purpose of that award which is to **help developing countries.** If you do not care about working opportunities in Australia after graduation, or you have no plan for further study after graduation, I think it could be a good opportunity. Just do not take advantage of it for unethical motivations.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: For Australia, no way. Scholarships are mainly for PhD students. Further, it is quite rare for a supervisor to simply give you his/her scholarships, if any.
Scholarships funded by the industry or Australian government are usually advertised at 'THE Unijobs' or Seek.com. Apply for them like any jobs, and compete with other applicants.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: E-mailing a professor to be their student is possible, and happens, **but only in case you really really are a good fit!**
If you are clearly not a good fit, and this is usually the case and shows clearly, in most cases you are unfortunately going to get ignored (i.e., the professor viewed you as spam).
Unlike the previous answers here, I definitely think, and know for a fact, that e-mailing a professor may be even a *necessary* condition to get you a scholarship in many schools. Unlike in some US schools where the recruitment is supposedly central, and even in these US schools, a specific professor who supports you can be crucial to get accepted. (But mostly for PhD, **not MSc**, and again, only if you are really fit and *top* student.)
*Note from experience*: I receive many such emails. 95% are clearly not a good fit, but sometimes I do get excellent students.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: As university education in Germany is free, scholarships are not very common, and they are (almost) never given out by individuals at universities. If you want to do a masters at a German university, simply apply--it is often not that hard to get a spot (see also my answer on [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188868/high-school-grades-effect-on-graduate-schools-admission/188878#188878)). It might be possible that you get a job at the university as a student researcher once you are admitted, but if you want to find a scholarship to pay for your living expenses, look elsewhere (e.g. DAAD, as has been suggested in the comments).
But depending on where you are studying, finding a student job outside of university is also quite easy in most bigger cities if you are not terribly picky.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: **In Germany: Nope**
Not going to happen. Professors do not handle Master's scholarships, and hardly any universities offer them. Some NON-UNIVERSITY organizations offer scholarships, which is how to obtain them in Germany, because you get none from the universities. And even if you could: not as a master's student and not by emailing a professor. There would be a regular way to apply for it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: **No**, or not in the UK at least. This approach is very unlikely to work, for many of the same reasons others have said: (a) individual academics are unlikely to be those controlling the purse-strings; and (b) there isn't much in the purse to begin with.
One of my institutions has relatively generous funding at the masters' level compared to some, but it is still absolutely the *exception* to get funding for a masters' level-qualification, and moreover they are *incredibly* competitive. Often the applicant has to be put forward to it by a bunch of academics in at least two committees -- one admitting them to the university *and recommending that they are considered for one of the rare and prestigious sources of funding*; and then the second committee *awarding them the scholarship*. Both of these are formal processes, and the academics on them are likely doing it as some form of their "service" for having a permanent job.
Note that there has been a big switch in recent years to the completely blind judging of applicants for these things: an anonymous CV is compiled with their name, gender, and the like removed and they are supposed to be judged objectively on their merits. In such circumstances *even if* the academic you emailed *wanted* to swing things in your favour *and was in a position to do so* -- all separately unlikely events -- this system would effectively make it far harder for them to do so.
**However**, talking to academics is a good thing to do if you are interested in the course -- but write a *personalised*, relevant email and not a "dear valued professor" spam that I get a lot of daily. If they tell you to apply, apply! Go through the process, and see if funding can be found -- and if not, well, there are other options ranging from professional loans to separate charitable bodies, to other institutions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: [germany](/questions/tagged/germany "show questions tagged 'germany'")
Teaching and Research Assistants, not Scholarships
--------------------------------------------------
Compared to some other countries, scholarships in Germany are underdeveloped. (On the other hand, university fees are very low, but a student still needs a living.) What a professor **may** be able to give to a suitable student are paid positions as teaching or research assistants.
* These assistants are employed by the university, but the professor who is leading a team will have a significant input on who gets hired. When a highly regarded professor is about to get tenure, he or she may negotiate with the university about working conditions, which may include a few such assistants working directly for the professor.
* Assistants will usually have some academic credentials, such as a Bachelor or Master.
* A professor will be thesis advisor to many more students than there are paid positions. Most of his or her students will not get one.
It is not impossible that a paid position goes to a student who did not work with the professor before. If you have a personal recommendation from your current professor and this professor knows the professor who is hiring, maybe. But a cold call expressing "some interest" won't do.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/09/21
| 1,226
| 4,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last year I worked on a novel dataset provided by my supervisor and I found interesting results which I presented in my BSc dissertation. A PhD candidate was working on the same dataset. Now the PhD candidate asked me via WhatsApp if he can use some of my figures in his PhD thesis. I asked the supervisor and she said it’s fine, as long as I get fully acknowledged for these figures. I did not send this student my dissertation, I did send it to the supervisor though. I feel like this is a bit shady. The student has the same raw data so they should be able to make these figures themselves. Any thoughts?<issue_comment>username_1: All of science is building on the work of others, provided proper credit is given. Is your BSc. dissertation in the university's library or has it been published? If so, you should expect people to learn from it and cite it. Even if your own work wasn't "published" in the traditional fashion, it is appropriate for others to build upon it.
As far as duplicating your work, why should someone do that? The only reason would be to validate your work.
Tell the Ph.D. student that it's OK to use the illustrations, always with proper credit.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: If they're using and citing your data, in most cases they'd need to use your presentation of it because that's all they'd have.
Here you say they have access to the raw data so could plot it themselves to match their other figures - but they'd still have to cite your work if you did the experiment. Using your figures helps make it very clear that they're not passing off your work as theirs; I tend towards a stronger acknowledgement than just a citation in this case (numeric superscript is normal in my field, but rather than *Figure 1: Some data¹* I would use *Figure 1: Some data. Figure and data courtesy of Kiwi¹* as my caption, where reference 1 is your undergrad thesis.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **Yes, you should allow the proper use of your BSc thesis in other scientific work.**
This is perfectly normal within a research group. In fact, you should see it as desirable.
Your BSc thesis is not just a "super exam" to complete your studies. It is a proper scientific work in its own right. As such, being used as a reference for other scientific publications is much of its point. Depending on the field, a BSc topic may even be purposely designed to support the broader research of other students or the group as a whole.
*Having a BSc thesis used as reference for another thesis is normal and desirable.*
Now, a BSc thesis is often not published like a MSc or even PhD thesis for various reasons. However the point of this is not to hide the scientific work but rather to help the author. For example, many theses clearly show that they are the authors' first real scientific work and lack polish and scrutiny.
Thus, it is common that a BSc thesis is just handed to the supervisor – it is then at the supervisor's discretion who else should get access. This usually involves people of the same research group working on related topics.
*Having a BSc thesis accessed by other students of the same research group is normal and desirable.*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Very definitely **yes**, you should allow them to use your figures, for the reasons others here already pointed out.
For the same reasons, you should also facilitate the reuse if it's easy for you. For example, send them the figure-building commands to software and/or higher-resolution image files, if you have them handy.
I think the proper credit should take the form of them **citing** your Undergraduate dissertation where the figures originally appeared, rather than "acknowledging" you. I'm not very sure of this, so talk to them and to your advisor but keep an open mind. Acknowledgment is almost as good though, the important thing is that they don't just let readers think it's their original work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: It does not matter if they would be able to plot the same figure themself.
As seen in [this comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188978/should-i-allow-a-phd-student-to-use-figures-of-my-undergraduate-dissertation-in/189034#comment509643_188979), they are doing the right thing, as long as they cite you as "<NAME>, BSc thesis, University of Somewhere 2021", so you have proper citation of your work.
Regarding the *shady* part, a thesis is written to be read by others. Quite often they are available in the university library. It is your work, but it is accessible to others than your supervisor. It seems your supervisor shared your thesis with the PhD student (or the PhD student ghost-reviewed it in place of your professor ... it can happen).
Be happy that someone found your work relevant and wants to reuse some figure of yours. It probably means you did a good job (at the very minimum at least a good enough job, which is still great!).
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/21
| 2,847
| 12,535
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a theoretical physics PhD student in the initial years. There is something which has been bothering me ever since I have started my PhD till today i.e whether one should completely focus on research all the time? Let me clarify:
I understand that PhD is about becoming an independent researcher and that is why most of the time should be spent on the research problem and reading relevant papers. But as everyone knows in research one picks up relevant tools along the way and a consequence of this is that one learns things only specific to the problem and may miss the global picture or may still have gaps in understanding.
For example, I work in Quantum Field Theory and often I am working in super specific areas then I wonder whether I should divide my time between research and reading background material of my field i.e excellent books on QFT like that of Coleman, Weinberg ( properly from page 1 onwards) etc( coursework is often fast, so It is not sufficient).
My advisor says that I should completely focus on my research problem all the time but I feel like by doing this I would not have a good grasp of the overall framework, QFT in this context.
What should one do? Devote all time to research or divide it between research and reading of important texts? Of course when I say divide the time, it is like 80-20 between research and parallel reading<issue_comment>username_1: My recommendation is to figure out roughly how much time it's reasonable and *sustainable long run* for you to think really hard (maybe this is one or two hours a day?), and then commit to spending that much time every day on your research problem. Then you want to also not *waste* the rest of your working day, even if it's not being spent on hard thinking. Learning stuff is one very reasonable use of this lower key time, another reasonable use is lightly skimming papers so you have a better idea of what's going on in the field, as is doing some research work that doesn't require serious thinking (sitting down and doing some calculation you know how to do, for example). That said, once you've gotten far enough to start writing papers or your thesis, I'd suggest prioritizing writing pretty heavily among these secondary activities.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: For the "initial years" of doctoral study the answer would be quite different in different places. For example, in US most students spend a couple/few years in advanced coursework preparing for qualifying examinations, so the question wouldn't arise here. But other places the research phase starts much earlier.
So, rephrasing it a bit, starting in the research phase of the degree, your advisor is approximately correct. Most of your time, almost all, should be spent on your research project(s) with readings and such as necessary to advance that research. Perhaps you do need to read somewhat widely in your field to do that.
However, reading in your narrow research topic area is natural for any academic. You need to keep up with what is happening and how it affects your own research.
There is a mental/psychological issue that comes in to play. If you spend too much effort on too narrow a subject too intensely, burnout is a possible result and you need to avoid that or it will set you back. You need to take breaks from intense study to do other things. Some of those things could be "lighter" reading, though still in physics. But you also need some exercise and sleep and human contact and ...
I doubt that any recommendation like 80/20 would be very valid in general and you need to work out your own work schedule. Let your body and your mind tell you what you need to do at the moment. Your mind will likely also work more efficiently if you give it a break now and then. The big ideas won't go away when you do this and the mind works subconsciously quite efficiently, but do something to keep the blood flowing if you want to be productive in the long run.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Vash, I can't agree more with the concern you brought up in your question.
I'm also doing Ph.D. I also have background projects. To make the long story short, here's what I came up with.
I analyzed my day: I was surprised how much time I was wasting.
I bought a planner. I planned my day. I specified the hours for each activity. That was a crucial point. Initially, I just planned the activities without specifying time for them. That didn't work very well. Once, I specified the time it made so much difference.
I allocated times for background projects (low percentage comparatively to my Ph.D. work).
I forced myself to follow the allocated times exactly. That was very difficult. But I kept forcing myself to release the pen from my hand immediately once the time comes for the next activity, no matter where I was. I, somewhat, got used to it with practice.
Switching between activities is very difficult. Immediate concentration on another activity is very difficult. A diet and sleep regime helps me make it possible. Sleep regime is 9pm-5am every day (except for weekends when I don't setup the alarm). The diet is my recent discovery. I'm following Dr. Berg's YouTube channel. The health and productivity outcomes from Dr. Berg's diet advice are amazing without exaggeration (even though I don't follow his advice exactly). My concentration raised to the levels I have never experienced before.
I've been practicing this regime for some time. I'm very pleased with the results. Not only it helped me to advance my background projects, but I also started doing more in my Ph.D. work.
To sum up, doing everything strictly with accordance to the allocated time and strictly following the diet and sleep regime helps me advance my background projects without hurting my Ph.D. work (and even to the benefit of my Ph.D. work). But the regime must be followed strictly.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I don't think there is a "one-size-fits-all" answer that will work for everyone. I think it's useful to be aware of two extreme scenarios, as well as a few practical considerations. Then you need to decide how to spend your time.
The first extreme is that you narrowly focus only on your research problem. For example, let's say you are computing electroweak loop corrections. You can spend all of your time learning how to use special software to calculate Feynman diagrams, intricacies of the Standard Model, and generally become an expert calculator. If you work hard and are lucky, you may produce several papers in your area. However, you may find it difficult to move into a new area, or to understand the context for what you are working on. By hyperfocusing, you may also not have the feeling of "joy" that comes from satisfying your curiosity and learning new things. On top of this, you may find your knowledge consists of a hodgepodge of unrelated tricks, instead of seeing and understanding interconnections between methods you would get learning things systematically.
The other extreme is that you spend all of your time reading a general book like Weinberg, cover to cover. (And it will take all of your time to read and understand every word in Weinberg). If this goes well, you will be exposed to a lot of topics and you will gain a systematic understanding of the foundations of the field. You will likely be able to understand research papers more quickly and ask better questions. However, you won't be directly solving a research problem and you will not be learning things on the cutting edge, which means you won't be making demonstrable progress toward your PhD. You should also be aware that Weinberg's book in particular is notoriously difficult to learn from. Often people say they use it as a reference, or come to it after they have learned the subject well from another book. There is a real risk of floundering, in the sense of spending a lot of time trying to understand a minute detail in a book, and then in the end discovering it is not really that important, and at the end of your effort you have nothing concrete to show for it.
Of course, you want to avoid these two extremes. Having said that, I think most PhDs are closer to the first extreme, than the second. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your goal in a PhD is to become an expert in a narrow domain. That requires intense focus. I also have generally found that having a specific problem to solve will force you to read relevant literature more carefully and understand it more deeply than if you were just browsing that same literature abstractly.
Additionally, there are some practical considerations:
* You may have funding tied to a tight timeline, in which case you will want to prioritize producing work that will lead to a thesis.
* Your advisor may be unhappy with your rate of progress if you spend too much time reading a textbook and not enough on your problem, which may cause friction. Generally minimizing friction with your advisor will make other things easier (such as applying for jobs).
* You may find that you can produce work at a rate your advisor is acceptable with while also doing readings on your own. You might even be more productive, since maintaining a fresh and interesting perspective on your field can keep you motivated and give you fodder for asking questions.
* A common approach is to work simultaneously on two research problems. (You probably don't want to do more than this if you are the person doing the majority of the work and you are just starting out). This kind of naturally forces you away from both of the extremes above, since you will get a breadth of knowledge by having two focus areas, but you'll also avoid being "lost at sea" with nothing to show for it.
What I would probably recommend is establishing the rate at which you need to work to be productive in research and meet (even exceed) your advisor's expectations, and then fill in the remaining work time you have with outside studies.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Your advisor's suggestion is a good one. You should completely focus on your research problem. As you progress, you will face some questions. Try to actively seek answers to those questions even when they are somewhat tangential to your problem. Also, one of the thesis goals is to put your research problem in the proper context. One learns about the context through discussion with a supervisor, attending seminars, and, of course, reading papers and books.
However, reading books from the beginning to the end at the Ph.D. stage may be a mistake. You must discuss and actively use the material to learn it well. Sometimes students are requested to do literature reviews and to seminars on these topics. This provides you with feedback and facilitates learning. That is the balanced way.
*But, skimming through a book without actively using it is a waste of time.*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: That depends on what year you are in. If you are in first or second year of grad school, then I'd say it makes no sense to work on anything non-trivial research wise, if you don't have the necessary background knowledge to even determine what problems are open, what problems are interesting (to you), and what problems actually have a chance of being solved. This is especially true for QFT. So I'd spend most of my initial years just catching up on background knowledge.
Besides the textbooks you have mentioned (which I'd also add <NAME>'s notes to), you need to determine what branch of QFT interests you (CFTs, constructive QFT, gauge theories, etc.), and find a recent review/survey paper, and focus on trying to understand every classical results being covered in there. A common pitful in theoretical physics research is spending a long time on a problem, and later realizing that it has been solved by someone decades ago.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: I think you're looking at this a bit sideways. With your mentor, work out a reasonable schedule for your graduate work, with deadlines and milestone reviews. The two of you should agree on the deadlines and the targeted completion date.
Once that is done, you need to do whatever you need to do to meet those deadlines. If you're spending 100% of your time on this, and you are still falling behind, you need to sit down with your mentor and work out more realistic deadlines.
If you find you need to spend 80% of your time to meet the deadlines, then 20% of your time is available for more general studies.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/22
| 461
| 2,158
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing a rebuttal letter to reviewers and the editor about one of my manuscripts. The reviewers were concerned about the results and they suggest running the same models but using another way to calculate the response variable. I am totally fine to explore the data with other ways to make results more robust and reliable. However, the results from the methodology suggested by the reviewers are not the same as the other one. This makes me feel dubious about the conclusion drawn from my results.
Although in the first version of the manuscript I had a sharp conclusion based on the initial results, now I realized that I should tone down the message after exploring the data in different ways.
I was wondering if you had a similar experience like this and how did you manage to your rebuttal letter?<issue_comment>username_1: It seems like a case in which the reviewers made good suggestions which made you go over your data and conclusions again, thereby improving your manuscript and saving you from making too bold claims. Therefore, the obvious approach is to thank the reviewers for their input and explain to the editor how your analysis and conclusions have changed/improved in the revised version of the manuscript by following the reviewers' advice. The way you explain it, your previous conclusions were not totally wrong. If so, you have no real reason to be overly worried just now. Focus on explaining your revisions to convince the editor that your manuscript is fit for publication.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think you are jumping the gun by thinking about the rebuttal letter. Your first priority here should be thinking about how these new results affect your paper and its conclusions. Rewrite your paper as needed, maybe even run further additional tests to confirm your new conclusions.
Now that you have written a better paper, writing a response to the reviewers (thinking about this as a "rebuttal" is already a wrong antagonistic mindset) is easy. Simply describe what you have done with the reviewers' suggestions and how this has improved your paper.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/09/22
| 842
| 3,647
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying to grad school this year for PhDs in mathematics. I have done four projects overall. One was a REU through which I published paper, and the second was my undergraduate thesis, where we solved an original problem (My professor said it wasn't enough to publish in a journal just yet, and unfortunately I don't think I'll have the time to work on that problem further). However, both these endeavors resulted in original work, so I don't mind categorizing them under "Research experience" in my CV.
In two other summers, I worked under different professors where I basically studied Coding Theory in one and Homological Algebra in the other. Both these projects led to me writing exposition on the topics I covered. However, I am unsure what I should categorize this under in my CV as it seems incorrect to categorize it as "research". I would like to know what should I classify my expository summer projects as in my CV, if not for "Research Experience"?<issue_comment>username_1: Deep reading on a narrow topic is often the preliminary to research, so it is related but not exactly the same thing. Dissertations, for example;le, often have a "literature search" section that places the current study in what is already known.
So, since a CV doesn't normally have a fixed format, you could use a section such as "Research Related Study" an list those other things, especially if you have written them up and presented them somehow, such as to a professor. "Specialized Independent Study" might also work.
If one or more of your professors who write your letters of recommendation mention your "deep dives" it will reinforce it.
If you intend to follow up with those studies then "Work in Progress" might be appropriate. Or "Early Stage Work In Progress", perhaps.
But I agree that they probably don't belong in the Research section itself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: No, it’s not research, and I’m not even sure it’s accurate to refer to these experiences as “exposition”. It sounds like you studied some math under the supervision of some professors, and wrote up a summary of what you learned. “Exposition” would really only make sense if you published or are intending to publish what you wrote (even if it’s just in the sense of making the document freely accessible online on some web page) with the goal of creating a useful resource for other people; and it carries an added implication that what you wrote is polished enough and of high enough quality to serve as a resource in such a way. So claiming the “expository” designation might come across as a bit presumptuous. Most write-ups of this sort written by undergraduates are pretty far from living up to this standard.
In addition, describing the project as “exposition” also puts the emphasis on the writing you did rather than on you having learned some advanced math, which may be actually the more relevant information you want to convey.
So basically there isn’t really a standard term to refer to such projects, but I’d stay away from “research” and “exposition”. I’d suggest putting this under a general heading such as “Miscellaneous”, “Other educational activities” or something similar, and describing the projects as something along the lines of:
* “Summer reading project on [name of topic] (supervisor: Professor [name])”.
* “Summer reading course” (only if this was done for academic credit)
* [name of the program you participated in] if this was done as part of a formal program, e.g., “Advanced Math for Undergraduates (summer project, Department of Mathematics, University of X)”.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|