date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2023/04/16
| 822
| 3,419
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have seen the questions [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90898/how-to-withdraw-an-under-review-manuscript-from-a-journal-when-you-decide-you-wa) and [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118088/is-it-ethical-to-withdraw-a-paper-after-reviews?noredirect=1&lq=1), but my reasons for wishing to withdraw are utterly different than theirs, so I don't think they're especially relevant.
I work in mathematics, say in field A. In recent years, field A has found a number of interactions with another part of mathematics; call it field B. About 7 or 8 months ago I finished a project that was an application of some results from field A to a question in field B. Despite using some results from field A, the resulting paper (both in techniques and scope) was essentially purely a paper of field B, and so I submitted it for publication in a journal J from field B.
Last week, while working on a completely unrelated project in field A, I realized that the techniques I had used in the abovementioned paper can be translated, essentially word-for-word, to get some results in field A. Unfortunately these results are no longer at all in the scope of journal J, as they are really applications to field A rather than field B. Thus, I thought the right thing to do would be to withdraw the submission from journal J, merge the two results into a single paper, and then publish in a journal that lies more in the intersection of field A and field B. So a few days ago I emailed journal J to inform them of the situation and request withdrawal of my submission.
Unfortunately, I think that email has not yet arrived to the editor handling my submissions, because I have now received an email informing me that my paper has been accepted to J modulo minor revisions and enclosing two referee reports. The timing is really unfortunate; I wish I had realized the application to field A a few months ago rather than just last week.
I still think the right thing to do is to withdraw the paper. However, I feel terrible for wasting the time of the journal, and especially of the two referees, who have put a great deal of time into reviewing the paper! Is it unethical to withdraw? More generally, is it insulting to the referees? If so, what is the best way to handle this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: The paper is yours until you release it to a publisher. But, I suggest that you consider what is best for the advancement of understanding, rather than the wishes of a particular publisher.
However, it might be best on all accounts if you let the current paper be published by this publisher and write a follow up paper, referencing the current one as needed.
The reason behind this suggestion is that the current paper is relevant, I hope, to those in field B, and they might benefit from seeing it and might not if it is published elsewhere.
You might have additional work to do, however, to achieve sufficient distinction between two papers to have them both published.
But, think of how best to advance scholarship, not the economics of a particular outlet.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: "I used research already known/published in field B to show that it works really well/is useful in field A" is, on its own, a very important (albeit arguably not innovative) paper to publish, separate to "Look at this method/theorem in field B".
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/17
| 1,060
| 4,686
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student currently needing advice on a paper submission issue with a previous supervisor (or advisor/mentor in some countries).
Last year, I discovered that my supervisor had not gotten ethics approval for part of my project, but she had been instructing me to collect the data anyway (sensitive personal info from cancer patients). The two other PhD students both had similar ethical and professional issues with this supervisor, so we decided to talk to our faculty about what to do. The university investigated and the supervisor got fired. The three of us had to start our PhD's again but we are all with much better labs now.
I wrote a systematic review last year with my old supervisor and a bunch of other co-authors. I was first author and my supervisor was senior and corresponding. We got knocked back from the first journal in October last year, shortly before all of the conflict happened. It's now been 6 months and I really want to submit the paper to a new journal (reviews go out of date quickly!). I have been instructed by my university to have no contact with the old supervisor, so I selected a new journal and decided to make myself the corresponding author, still leaving her as senior.
Here's where the problem is, I got advice from a few executives at my university and they supported me submitting the paper to a new journal but told me that we need to get consent from all authors including my old supervisor. The dean corresponded with the old supervisor on my behalf and (I was told) the supervisor responded saying something to the effect of 'I'm the senior author AND corresponding author and I need to submit this myself, no one else is to do it on my behalf'. The supervisor also said that it was 'on her list of things to do' but that was over 3 weeks ago and I haven't been notified of any submissions yet.
\*\*Edit: This paper is a review and features none of the improper data. That data has been handed over to the university and will not be published.
I don't care who submits it, I just want it to get done. It seems as though she is intentionally being difficult and delaying things. My university have told me that unfortunately there isn't much I can do but wait for her to take care of it.
Are there any other options? I would hate to have worked so hard and have a great paper just sit there doing nothing.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know what I would do since I've never been in this position, but, one person who for all intents and purposes is no longer on the project (and was let go for ethics violations!!!!!!) can't simply delay the publication.
If I were you, what I would do is write to whoever the managing editor is and simply explain the situation, and ask the journal what their opinion is. At the end of the day, **they** have say over what you can and can't submit to them and the details surrounding it.
So, reach out to the editor. Explain the relevant details, and just ask them how this might be sorted out in terms of a submission.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: TLDR
You *absolutely can not* publish this data without a human subjects board review, but maybe you can rescue it.
The longer story:
No journal will touch an article if the authors can't attest that proper ethical guidelines were adhered to.
The *best* you can probably do is to find someone willing to go to bat for you with the Human Subjects committee at your school. If it turns out that informed consent was *not* required, for whatever reason, that committee may see fit to retroactively approve your study. This *might* be the case if there were no risks, or no concerns of privacy.
Otherwise, you might be completely out of luck. A best case for you is that the committee *might* say something along the lines of "we'll allow you to contact the subjects to seek retroactive permission through a consent process". I would imagine that might involve an explanation to the subjects concerning what went wrong, along with a promise to permanently delete the data if consent is not given.
Note that even approaching the Human Subjects people is not without risk, and there are probably people in your environs probably want this whole situation to go away with zero extra attention. Human Subjects panels have reporting responsibilities for certain kinds of violations, and your case may fall into one of those situations.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Three weeks do not sound at all like being difficult. I’m in best terms with my ex supervisor but reference letters can take a month. In academic publishing, everything takes months. You are perhaps being too impatient.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/17
| 1,185
| 5,217
|
<issue_start>username_0: Me and a colleague are co-organizing a conference next year (which will be hosted in our city). Neither of us has ever organized a conference before. It is a yearly conference that so far has happend 3 times at the same location. The original organizers wanted to grow the conference and make it more international and have started to look for collaborators and co-hosts in other countries - this is where we come in. The field is a multi-disciplinary engineering sub-section.
The original organizers are present and offer support and guidance, but give us a lot of freedom concerning structure, specific topics, etc. I would very much like to implement a small best paper award (this would be the first instance of the conference that has such an award), as I think it is nice (especially for early career researchers) to get recognition this way. Everyone is on board with the idea but noone has any experience on how to chose the awardee. I asked my PhD supervisor (who is not part of the conference organization crew), and he told me that he only ever had the steering comittee chose who to give an award to.
We would like to give the audience a chance to vote, too, as a good presentation should not only be of great quality content wise, but also presented well and understandably--a matter that an audience might be more fit to judge. We wonder, though, if this is very uncommon (I have never experienced any instance of "public" voting for an award at a conference) and will lead to biased voting because some presenter might know more people and is more popular.
So is audience-voting for best-paper awards something that actually happens and what should one consider when implementing it to avoid skewed and biased results?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes sure, at some conferences participants are asked to vote for best talk, best poster or similar. It is probably not the norm, but it does happen.
At one rather well-known and also high quality conference in my field, all poster presenters give a 3 minutes talk about their poster, and after the following poster session votes are collected from the participants. Traditionally, most presenters give a serious presentation, but some make a quite a fuss and are more on the humorous side. The latter tend to have a better chance to win, and it is not always based on scientific merit. But that is no big issue from my perspective (a rubbish poster would not win, of course). It is just a different emphasis than when for example a pre-determined jury decides.
Also, the conference is not so big (approx. 500 participants) and some big research groups come with basically all their members (maybe 30-50 people, just an estimation). Members of these groups also have a better chance because they may agree before who they vote for, and an extra 50 votes easily can decide the outcome. These posters are often high in quality, but not necessarily the best. This is more problematic from my perspective because participants from other groups have a much smaller chance to win, no matter how brillant their poster is.
Whatever the method is to decide who gets the prize, it is always a debatable decision. There is usually not the one best contribution, but quite a few very good ones that all would deserve the prize. I am not sure if there can be an awardee selection completely ruling out any bias.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you are conflating two mostly-independent objectives.
1. Decide the award based on certain criteria (such as the quality of the presentation) and avoid it being a popularity contest.
2. Give the audience a chance to influence who should win the prize.
The second one is perfectly justifiable but I am not sure it has anything to do with the first one. If you want to do it, replace the "award panel" in what follows by "the whole audience".
For (1), I would prepare a (short!) list of criteria and ask the award panel to score each presentation on all criteria. The way to combine those scores into a decision (best weighted average?) should be announced in advance to the award panel. Here's my attempt at a three-point list for oral presentations:
* The work is original, covers new ground and/or establishes new techniques in the field
* The work is carefully executed, adheres to strict ethical and methodological guidelines, and/or includes appropriate discussion of possible limitations
* The presentation is clear; the work's scope, methods and results are easily understood from the presentation
The point of a scoring schedule is not (as in exams) to communicate feedback to the presenters. Rather, it is to force panelists to assess each item as objectively as possible, to minimize conscious and unconscious biases. [You’re going to feel that the student you taught in undergrad class made a better presentation than the one you never met before](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect), but presumably that bias is higher when asked "which were the three best presentations" instead of "score all the presentations based on criteria X, Y and Z". The latter requires the scorer to be satisfied with the relative rankings of all presentations.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/17
| 2,780
| 11,326
|
<issue_start>username_0: I received a paper to review that I can only describe as very bad. Not only are there structural issues that anyone that has previously published a paper in a respectable journal should know to avoid (like providing sources for images that are clearly not the authors' own) and instances of (self) plagiarism. Most of the papers of the authors themselves that are cited in the paper stem from one very questionable journal.
Much worse, though, is the fact that the paper is (IMHO) religous agenda badly disguised as a scientific paper: the authors claim miracles to be the cause of effects they are describing, they selectively dismiss results that dispute their theories and claim in the last paragraph that they have thus proven that Jesus has risen from the grave.
I am honestly really shocked that this was not desk rejected but made it to peer review, but here we are. I now wonder if it is OK to write a review along the lines of "Your paper is bad and you should feel bad" because that really is my honest opinion? Or should I rather skip the review report altogether and just write to the editor that I think this should not be published?<issue_comment>username_1: Why waste your time writing a lengthy review? Just note to the editor that the paper should have been desk rejected. Identify one or two fundamental issues --these could be high level.
There are many authors who have no idea what research is nor the resources to carry out high quality research. There is no point 'scolding' them.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: You do not have to be nice, nor do you have to be nasty.
Just be concise, and everyone's life will be easier, even the authors' (it is up to them to blame the short review on their approach or on being "offended" by reviewers' suggestions to the editor).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: If you do not think a paper is publishable, then reject it (it is part of the assignment to filter out the bad ones). If it is really bad, you should be able to form a short, objective critique of the manuscript in your answer, and you do not need to be rude.
If the manuscript cannot support its results with arguments, the manuscript is so poorly written/structured that is is a problem to follow its argument, if there are several big logical mistakes etc these are well defined, objective reasons while you reject a paper.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: If the paper is truly as you describe it, I would just write the editor who asked me to review it and tell them "This should be desk rejected." I would still write and formally submit a review, consisting of only one page with major comments. Then I'd send my review off in a day. But no, no need to be unkind.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: If it's really very bad you don't need to write a whole dissertation about how horrible it is. The editor will probably see it. Just clearly, succinctly and objectively state the biggest problems and it will get rejected. Don't waste your life on bad papers, instead worry about good papers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: The reason there's an option for ***reject*** is to allow reviewers to *filter* out bad papers.
As reviewers, we are duty bound to engage the manuscript beyond
* 'who' the author(s) is/are
* what our 'personal' feeling is
* what our individual **subjective** view is
Rather, we ought to engage
* the academic value of the manuscript
* the contribution to knowledge (this can be a lengthy debate in itself)
* the academic content
* the validity, reliability, rigour
* the manuscript vis-a-vis its methodological approach (philosophy, methods) and not our fixated methodology.
Say a manuscript is philosophically underpinned by *critical realism* and follow *pluralism* (multimethods) instead of quantitative or mixed-methods.
Are we to castigate the authors or shoot down the paper, bearing in mind the methodological choice of the manuscript and rationale.
* the manuscript **objectively** (be objective and put our research 'bias' aside for a moment) That's a matter for another day.
Of course, there're other metrics of review. I'm just listing some.
By and large, when a manuscript has scaled the editorial gatekeeping, we ought to focus on the review and contribute our quota to knowledge. We need not become a second layer editor. *Let's review*
So for a *bad paper*, how bad is bad. Philosophically speaking, isn't bad, in this context of post editor, subjective?
I'll just list the defects from a academic review standpoint. I need not list them all: just some highlights that'll
* show that the manuscript is off-track (bad as in bad)
* give indication of defects that might prompt/assist in making a reasonable author in (re)channelling their research endeavour/energy.
Be objective and succinct.
PS: Some *bad* papers have gone up to become *frontiers*
[*Note that in saying we must fix our eyes on the manuscript and get on with the **review**, I am not saying we must not write that **note** to the editor. We can and we should. That's why, as reviewers, we're empowered with that "**confidential note to the editor**". Nonetheless, let's get on with the review and contribute to our discipline*]
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Given the topic of the paper, it's entirely possible that the editor did not feel comfortable with a desk reject because of (or in order to avoid the appearance of) religious bias.
As such, I would say that your best service to the editor, the journal, the scientific community at large, and maybe even the authors themselves, is to compose a review along the lines of what you posted in the question.
As long as you keep your comments to the content and references of the paper and refrain from ad hominem (and from what I read here, this is well within your capabilities), I would say that that's your duty.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: No, you don't have to be nice. You have to be professional, but this does not always equate with being nice. Generally, there are three kinds of papers that I get to review.
1. Very good papers. I enjoy them. Very rare. Minor revision, and review is short.
2. Mediocre to good papers. Lots of work, perhaps good idea, but then something is lacking. Major revision or reject, review has to be detailed to sort good and bad aspects out.
3. Bad paper. Don't enjoy them, but not a lot of work. Reject, and just a few arguments why it was rejected. Reviewer does not need to list ALL the reasons why. It is up to author to reach certain scientific paper minimum, and it is not reviewer's job to teach authors how to write papers properly.
Of course, everyone expects that papers (3) would be desk rejected, but this is not always possible (someone mentioned religious aspect of the paper, which may frighten the editor into getting reviewer's opinion). Of course, with (3) also goes sometimes the explanation to the editor why the paper is bad, and since it is not visible by authors you can be as nasty as you want there. Just don't send this to the authors my mistake.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_9: Reading between the lines, it sounds like your motive for being anything other than nice might be somehow to "talk sense" to the authors or at least to take an abstract stand by decrying behavior you consider unacademic.
If that really is your motive, you'll get closer to your goal by being polite but firm. If you veer off into ad hominems or screeds about religion in public life, you could be reinforcing their preconception that "Christians can't get a fair hearing in academia," even as unwarranted as that view is here. Imagine them telling everyone at their church about that one time they tried submitting to a journal in your field and got berated. Imagine some young congregant, a future superstar in your discipline, listening to them and becoming dissuaded from academic research. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but maybe it does.
TBH your question doesn't make sense to me. If you're asking for someone's permission to not be nice, it implies you *want* to not be nice. ("You should feel bad"? I know that's not literal, but it still says a lot.) If you can explain why you would prefer not to be nice, you can probably answer yourself better than we can.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: You should be professional and respectful. Someone spent time writing the article and thinking about it (although it may be very bad) and there is never any justification for being nasty, apathetic, moody or cantankerous, regardless of age or power level in the academic system.
Just give a short, professional explanation of what you think the main problems are and why it should be rejected, then send that to the editor and move on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: Academia is, thankfully, not the Stack Exchange network: you don't have to pretend to be nice when it's unwarranted. Papers that completely fail the most basic tests of academic rigour are not just a waste of your valuable time, they show a fundamental incompetence and disrespect for intellectual honesty, and ultimately demonstrate that the author(s) of said paper need a wake-up call.
A simple rejection is unlikely to trigger that wake-up call, but a harshly-worded one might.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: >
> and claim in the last paragraph that they have thus proven that Jesus has risen from the grave.
>
>
>
The optimistic view is that the author is (apparently) *trying* to be academically rigorous. If you reject it out of hand, it will *reinforce* the writer's belief that the peer review process is nothing but a gatekeeper for approved (secular, in this case) ideas.
You should explicitly state *why* everything up to the conclusion is bad. The only thing I'd mention about the conclusion is that no conclusion can be drawn from such a flawed set of "facts".
EDITS:
* A commenter thinks that I advocate debating with the author. But since peer reviewers don't meet the author, and the author doesn't know who reviewed it, there can't be a debate.
* Another commenter does think that the only gates which exist are those of methodologically and theoretically sound science. That is manifestly not true, even though academics would like to believe it so.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_13: >
> I now wonder if it is OK to write a review along the lines of "Your paper is bad and you should feel bad" because that really is my honest opinion?
>
>
>
You certainly shouldn't write that, even if it is your honest opinion. As is pointed out in other answers, many people have no real idea what it takes to create a proper scholarly paper, and if they lack the skills to do this then it ought not be a cause for them to feel bad about themselves. As you point out, this should have been rejected at desk review. If you wish to respond with a substantive review for the authors (as opposed to just going back to the editor and telling them to reject), keep it professional and comment in a sober and constructive manner about the deficiencies of the paper that prevent it from being acceptable. Do not make extraneous comments about the author or their (presumed) motivation, or assert that they should feel bad about the quality of the work.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/17
| 2,396
| 9,795
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a tenured professor of mathematics (applied mathematics).
This year, unfortunately, I do not have enough funding for my own summer salary.
I can see there are plenty of visiting positions
for early career researchers.
But I haven't seen any summer positions for
older (in academic age) professors.
How can I find other summer opportunities
within academia with reasonable income?
Some clarifications:
* At least in my corner of academia, salaries are relatively low; I do not think that parsing out my 9-month salary over 12 months would be reasonable. And tenured professors generally cannot get unemployment benefits
in the US.
* I am talking about academic positions; other options like waiting tables are not of interest.
* Teaching summer classes at my institution may be an option, but I don't really want to
as no course in my area of specialty will be offered in the summer.<issue_comment>username_1: Start an educational YouTube channel. Though it'll need time to take off. I knew a faculty member (incidentally a mathematician) who was bartending for extra income and another one who was bartending once per week.
On a more serious suggestion, I'd ask around for opportunities in tech companies (paid summer internships) or labs that may not pay well, but can nevertheless add to your CV. Find something you always liked to do and try it. Also, you may use your network, colleagues, and students alike.
**Edit:**
After the question was modified, I believe that the only options remaining would resemble the options a Faculty member on Sabbatical has. They usually look for institutions to host them, for a semester or year. They usually do research and/or teaching there, as far as I know, but I'm a little outside my depth here.
If I were in your shoes, I would ask colleagues for research opportunities that might pay. Even if they don't pay well now, opportunities like that might help you expand your research agenda so that you may be able to find more grants in the future so that you won't run into these sorts of problems again (I would think of them as an investment). I'd also look for community colleges, liberal art colleges, and large state universities in my area (and nearby of course), and ask whether they offer summer teaching opportunities. Teaching a new class at your institution will expand your teaching arsenal so I would think about that too. In general, I would tap into my network of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances for help and ideas. I would also do some soul-searching to find out things I always wanted to do but didn't. Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think anybody here can answer this question, since we do not know what marketable skills you have. Teaching summer school is not so bad. However, if you have to starve because your nine-month salary is not sufficient, you might need to consider a career change. I hope for you that this is just hyperbole.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Spend the time solving your direct problem: write more grant proposals.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I use my math skills to earn money where it's easiest to earn money, and that's by trading on the stock market. This does require mastering some basic skills, it's quite easy to master for anyone with a decent math background. If you are creative with your math sills you can easily outperform most traders and get to decent profits. This has become a lot easier in recent years due to the large number of of retail traders who are just gambling with 0DTE options.
A big advantage for earning an income this way is that where I live, there is no capital gains tax. This mean that my income is officially zero. I only pay tax over my possessions the effective tax over every dollar earned from trading on the stock market is then extremely low. This has prompted many successful traders to move to countries where they don't have a capital gains tax. For example, Dubai is popular place for traders to emigrate to,
Earning money by trading the stock market leaves me with enough time and money to pursue my scientific interests. I publish my research results in peer reviewed journals just like I did when I was working in academia. However, I'm publishing less frequently because the projects I work on are longer term projects. There is now no pressure on me to do anything I don't want to do to get to more publications per year.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> In USA, college professor only get 9 month salary. So such temporary unemployment will be an **annual occurrence**.
>
>
>
Given that ***tenured*** connotes *security*, *freedom*, ought to connote 'top-notch' *research*, and those perks, one should
* take the pain of *infancy*: temporal relative income at the *early* stage and
* build up research
* engage extensively
* attract funding
* obviously bringing all three into writing grants proposal
Would that put money into OP account this summer. Doesn't look like it.
Will it solve or assist with future *occurrence*, it would.
The freedom that comes with *tenured* grants the leeway for research and engagements that might bring lasting *academic revenue* for years to come.
Note that, some get *visiting* through their research visibility and collaboration/engagements.
Am I suggesting that it's a walk in the park? Nope. Some have it pretty tough.
PS: I'm also not suggesting the pathway of *publish or perish*.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: There are several programs aimed at fostering international collaborations through short-term visiting positions which accept senior academics such as tenured professors.
Two examples are the [Humboldt Research Fellowship](https://www.research-in-germany.org/en/research-funding/funding-programmes/avh-humboldt-research-fellowship-for-experienced-researchers.html) for Germany and the [Invitational fellowships](https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-inv/application/2023application.html) for Japan, but there are many similar programs. These programs can be offered through nation-wide calls, but many smaller ones are offered by specific universities or research institutions. There are also smaller grants with similar purposes.
However, note that many of these fellowships have the objective of supporting longer-term collaborations (i.e., extending beyond the visiting period) with researchers in the host institution. Moreover, some of them can be very competitive due to the limited amount of positions, and the applications often have to be made well in advance of the visits.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: You don't say what your area of specialization is, but consulting to industry or government is sometimes possible. But since this is last minute (relatively) you may not have time for that. You also don't mention what kind of institution you are at, which can make a difference. One option might be to teach at another institution, which could be interesting and a change of pace. Or teach a course in a new area, maybe even something like a freshman level, general education course which if you haven't done before can be an eye-opener.
You might want to look into what opportunities there are for at last some funding at your institution. Since you usually have grants you many not be aware of this, but many programs would be so happy to have a math faculty member engage (especially if your department tends to be people who are not engaged on campus).
I'm not in math, but some ways I have been paid in the summer over many years as a faculty member.
* Stipends for mentoring student researchers.
* Payment to create a new course.
* Payment to develop a proposal for a new program.
* Consulting for other people's research projects.
* Payment for designing and running our summer bridge program.
* Running a faculty development program.
* Participating in a faculty development program.
* Payment to create an open educational resource to replace a costly text book.
* Writing a commercial book.
* Summer advising and summer chair.
But at a certain point, you have to decide how much chasing you want or need to do. I also realized that family time, vacation and time to write at my own pace made it so that doing a ton of projects in the summer was not.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I am in a similar position in an institution that does not pay a reasonable salary, even to tenured professors. For 10+ years I've solved the issue by (1) teaching night classes during the semester, (2) teaching half summers, and (3) doing non-academic work during the second half of the summer.
This might sound like a lot of work, but it's less work and more enjoyable than it seems.
Students taking night classes and summer classes tend to be more motivated, and come from a different population. Instead of 18-year-olds rolling their eyes and looking at their phones, I get 25-30 year-olds wanting to learn. It's super refreshing to teach people who want to learn. These classes make up almost half of my income, so yes, almost a 100% salary increase for something I love doing.
Before I came to academia many decades ago, I worked in the trades. I use those skills to do contract work for half of the summer. It pays really well and the physical work clears my mind.
With the combination of the income sources I'm able to travel to conferences despite meager support from the university, buy books, computer equipment, finance my own field research, etc., and enjoy financial stability at home.
I've tried writing grants and have received many (small/med size), but after counting the hours spent writing, administering, and reporting, they have never been worth it for me. Same thing for summer fellowships, visiting appointments, etc.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/18
| 2,118
| 8,952
|
<issue_start>username_0: The background: I'm a postdoc in mathematics (U.S.) and approaching the end of my postdoc term. I applied for permanent academic jobs last fall and did not end up getting a tenure-track job offer. It was somewhat surprising; I have a very good publication record, in both quality and quantity (e.g., regular papers in "top 20" pure math journals). As recently as a month ago, it seemed that my academic career was over. But I was fine with it---I also got an offer for a good non-academic job (though it is currently unofficial; it will be some time before I get an official offer).
The situation suddenly changed when I learned that my NSF grant application (the standard 3-year research grant) from last fall had been funded! I talked to my postdoc institution about the situation, and they have decided to let me extend my postdoc another year so I can apply again for jobs in the fall. A couple weeks later, I was unexpectedly contacted about an open non-tenure track teaching-oriented lecturer position at another university and quickly offered the position. It's a good offer (aside from the detail of not being tenure-track), though it would be an unusual situation to hold it as an NSF-funded researcher.
In summary, I have three options: (1) take the lecturer position; (2) stay put at current institution another year and apply again; (3) hold out for the non-academic job. I'm inclined to take the lecturer position, but I also wonder if this would be a career-limiting decision. If I stay in academia, it is with the goal of getting a tenure-track job, so I want to get a sense of what is the most viable path forward.
Here's my question: how much upward mobility does a person generally have after taking a lecturer position? That is, should I expect the chance to land a tenure-track job at a future point, or will I effectively be out of contention?
And the answer should be weighed relative to the alternative of extending the current postdoc.<issue_comment>username_1: For better or worse (actually: for worse) it is very rare that someone who had gotten onto the lecturer track (where your emphasis will be on teaching) to get back onto the tenure track. Part of that is just practicality: Your job is to teach, and do so to the exclusion of having time to do much research. As a consequence, after a year or two you will see that people on the lecturer track no longer have new publications coming out. Part of it is also just perception: Someone has apparently chosen teaching as a career, whereas there are plenty of candidates who have chosen research.
Which of your three options you pursue isn't for me to recommend.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a pointed non-answer.
I am assuming you applied widely, essentially to every tenure track job you are remotely qualified for. I am also assuming that you didn't fail miserably at interviewing - that if you had interviews you gave reasonable job talks and were pleasant with the people you talked to.
Your situation is basically unprecedented. Think of it this way: of the members of the NSF panel that recommended your grant for funding, something like 6-8 of them were probably from departments most of whose faculty members do not have an NSF grant (and 2-3 from a department most of whose faculty members never had an NSF grant). This basically means none of those departments, or departments with similar evaluations of applicants (and departments don't vary that widely) were hiring with openness to hiring in your area.
Pre-pandemic, that would never have happened.
For the non-tenure-track position, I am assuming it is a teaching-oriented, permanent position. You should expect that you will get no research done while in this position, though (assuming you don't teach over the summer) you can use summers to write up the research you are doing now. In the past, people (and not just one or two exceptional cases) have managed to get hired into research-oriented positions after 2 or 3 years doing minimal research on the strength of their past research and the continued output based on work in progress.
However, as already noted, the current job market is unprecedented, and I don't really know just how bad it is. Past experience isn't going to help predict the future here.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: (Mathematician at a research-oriented US university)
If you aim at a tenure-track position, especially at a research-oriented university, then I would recommend extending your postdoc.
From the standpoint of hiring committees, in principle your decision shouldn't matter, as you should be evaluated on the strength of your record. In practice, you might look slightly better applying as a postdoc, as opposed to as a NTT lecturer.
From your point of view, moving, adjusting to a new institution, and carrying (presumably) a high teaching load seem likely to be a major distraction -- right at the time when you'll want to focus on your job applications. This seems unlikely to be helpful, unless you would be interested in staying there for multiple years.
Between the non-username_3 job offer and trying again for username_3 jobs next year... I really can't say, that depends on your priorities and how the job market shakes out next year. Unfortunately the username_3 job market is getting worse, and many deserving candidates are not getting good job offers. On the other hand, many still are. With an NSF grant I would *hope* that you get multiple strong offers, but it's impossible to predict.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: As a mathematician funded by a 3-year NSF grant, you will be in my opinion a very strong contender for assistant professor positions at many US mathematics departments. You are basically ahead of 99% of the competition in an important parameter. That is a very good signal. In order for you to fail in the next tenure track job search, I think you’d either have to be very picky about geographic locations and/or institutional prestige (pickiness always makes things more difficult, obviously), or you’d have to send some very bad signals that would negatively offset the good signal. (**Added on edit:**) Or the job market could tank catastrophically, leading many other strong candidates to have a poor outcome.
Now, this analysis remains true whether you are a postdoc or a lecturer. So I think from the point of view of a hiring institution, they are not going to care much about your current job title - they will see your NSF grant, and evaluate your papers, letters of recommendation etc, and that will be their basis for deciding whether to offer you a job.
It is true that as a postdoc you will have more time for research than as a lecturer, so indirectly that might lead to better prospects of getting a tenure track job. But given that you’ll be applying in the fall, the amount of additional research you can generate as a postdoc compared to a lecturer in time for it to be considered for the current round of applications is probably not large anyway.
The reason that one does not see much upward mobility (as you put it) for math lecturers is mainly that the sort of people who are good enough to end up with a tenure track position are also good enough to line up another postdoc if they are temporarily unable to get a tenure track job. They can thus continue focusing on their research, which maximizes the chance for success. In the uncommon situation that a person in your situation decides to prefer a lecturer position to a postdoc, I don’t think the mere fact of being a lecturer should negatively affect how you are perceived, especially since, as I said, having an NSF grant shows you to be a more active and successful research than almost all postdocs, and indeed than even many tenure track researchers.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Consider that unless you get a job at an R1, whatever tenure-track position you get will involve a lot of teaching. I have been in many tenure-track search committees, and every year we look more and more at proven teaching experience. In other words, we discard all of those BS teaching philosophy statements and look at your actual experience. In my eyes, a successful NSF grant AND solid, verifiable teaching experience tells me that you are a person who can write grants, knows how to balance a teaching load, and knows what you are getting into.
I always tell my students that you should judge your past decisions based on the odds you had when making the decision. Gambling at the casino is a bad decision even after winning the jackpot, because you gambled with the odds against you. Gambling you'll get an R1 tenure-track job is in my opinion, always the wrong decision (even if you were to get it.)
I would take the lectureship, balance teaching and research, and not miss a bit applying to tenure-track positions from day 1.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/18
| 635
| 2,699
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm about a month away from my PhD defense, and my goal is to work in industry (I'm in medicinal chemistry and I've been doing high-throughput screen and in vitro inhibition assays of a particular enzyme). I started job searching in industry about a month ago, thinking that I shouldn't have problems finding suitable positions. However, as I've started searching and applying, I've noticed that a lot of the jobs in biopharma that are posted require things like mammalian cell culture work, transfection, genomics, immunology etc., which I don't have experience in. Therefore, I'm thinking that I may need to do a postdoc after all to gain experience in those areas - there's some very important skills that I'm apparently missing! Of course, if I get an industry offer, I'll go ahead and take it, but it seems like I may not be qualified for PhD-level positions (I'm open to taking a MS-level position but most employers would consider me "overqualified"). But it's a month before my defense and it's rather late in the game when it comes to postdoc apps. My advisor can only fund me for another 2.5 months (end of June). How much trouble am I in in terms of getting a postdoc that is rather significantly different from my PhD? How long of a gap is acceptable to potential postdoc PIs?<issue_comment>username_1: How much trouble are you in: that really depends on what country you are looking for postdocs in. Positions open up at different times in different regions. For me, the academic year starts in September, so there are lots of postdoc positions being posted now.
However, if you want to work an industry job, then you are far better off just applying for them. Your skills are transferable, and what you don't know you will learn on the job. Your ability to learn quickly is more important than what you have already learned, especially when you are going to be applying for more junior positions anyway.
Don't be intimidated. Just go for it and most importantly, be open to change.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I started job searching in industry about a month ago
>
>
>
I am not familiar with your individual situation, but for any job search I would recommend allowing a minimum of three months. If you expected to find a job within one month then you would be in very bad trouble. Keep in mind that a job application often waits a month to be read and a job offer often takes a month to be approved by an employer.
The content of a job ad is not an accurate predictor of the qualifications of the person who is hired.
Look up the profiles of people who have the job you want. That will get you data, as opposed to opinions.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/18
| 481
| 2,080
|
<issue_start>username_0: A master's student in the department of mathematics that I work in has recently finished his master's thesis, on a topic that is well represented in the literature. There are several books and surveys concerning the subject but they are either semi-elementary treatises, or research level expositions.
He managed to write his thesis in quite a mature style and he treats results up untill 2022, (much like a survey). It should be noted that he has made no original contributions to the field, though he has written down some of his ideas and approach to the subject.
As such, I would like to ask wether he should publish his thesis, on the account of pedagogical reasons (and not only that) and if doing so could impact possible PhD applications? How whould the comunity recieve a survey-like publication from an unknown student?<issue_comment>username_1: It isn't obvious that he *can* publish the thesis other than on a private site or something like arXiv. Publishing with a formal publisher is decided by that publisher, not the author. It will need to pass muster by reviewers and an editor whose standards probably include some measure of novelty. And it isn't clear that what you describe has the required novelty.
But, if a reputable publisher will issue it then it is probably a plus for doctoral admissions. Private publication counts for much less if it isn't also formally published. For an established researcher that isn't quite the same, however, and preprints from known scholars can be highly valued, though also as a step along the way to formal publication.
But, the work may have pedagogical value. It might even be worth publishing as a separate volume as a service. Making it known to those who might want to see it is a major hurdle, however. Especially for someone new to academia.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My best-placed publication is half of my MA thesis. I would suggest the student to try to add some original thesis/overall interpretative structure to the work and to publish it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/18
| 864
| 3,564
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received an email from a US university asking if I am still available to accept an admission offer to their PhD math program. They mentioned that I was in the "top group" on their waitlist and they might have a spot open up in the next few days.
My understanding is that things move rather quicky after the April 15 deadline and hence I would not be given a lot of time to make a decision. My question is that would it be appropriate for me to contact the remaining 6 schools from which I have not heard yet to know the status of my application, and my position on their waitlist, if any, **before** receiving an offer from this school? I feel like I might not have enough time to wait for their responses after an offer is made. Do I need to include any details about the offer I'm expecting in my email to these universities? Similarly, is it okay for me to contact their current grad students pre-emptively to gauge their level of satisfaction with their program to help me decide? Roughly how much time is an applicant allowed to make a decision for offers made after the April 15 deadline?<issue_comment>username_1: It is entirely appropriate to contact these remaining schools.
>
> Hello Professor [Grad Coordinator],
>
>
> I am looking to make a final decision on graduate programs for the coming fall. Could you let me know the status of my application with your program?
>
>
> Sincerely ZSMJ
>
>
>
Do bear in mind that if they have not let you know by now, you are likely soft rejected or waitlisted. We rarely gave waitlisted students more than a week to make a final decision once they were elevated to a full offer.
As to contacting current students, I am not sure what would stop you. There is nothing wrong with reaching out to current students to ask about their experiences. We actually tried to put potential students in contact with current students on purpose when I was doing graduate admissions.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Frankly, I'm not sure what there is to decide. It is now past April 15 and it sounds like all your schools have either rejected you or ghosted you except this one. While it's not impossible that some of the schools you haven't yet heard from could end up accepting you, the odds are against you at this point. So it sounds to me like you either accept this offer (it it comes) or you don't attend grad school at all (at least for now). And if you choose the latter option, then I'm not sure why you applied to this school in the first place.
>
> My question is that would it be appropriate for me to contact the remaining 6 schools from which I have not heard yet....Do I need to include any details about the offer I'm expecting in my email to these universities?
>
>
>
If you haven't heard anything by now, it's almost certainly not good news. But sure, nothing to lose at this point, reach out if you like. There is no need to provide details; you can if you like, but keep your mail concise (1-2 sentences).
>
> Similarly, is it okay for me to contact their current grad students preemptively to gauge their level of satisfaction with their program to help me decide?
>
>
>
Sure, nothing wrong with this.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I am someone who is professionally informed on this topic. I would send them emails and/or call every day until they give a status or accept you. Ridiculous to make you wait. Just keep contacting them over and over, that's what they get paid for sitting at their desk all day.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/04/18
| 1,215
| 4,813
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am coming from another country for a post-doc. It's been 2 months and immediately project plan and work pressure started.
Meanwhile, I fell sick and was on leave for one week. When I returned back, they gave me a termination letter.
Is it the right behaviour?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> immediately project plan and work pressure started. Meanwhile, I fell sick and was on leave for one week. When I returned back they gave a termination letter.
>
>
>
If I were to put on my labour law hat, in which I have some exposure, should I read in-between the line here, on probative base, seemly, there's an *underlying unsatisfactory performance* concern.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying of certain, this is the case. However, it's indicative from the *undertones*.
Kindly reflect objectively.
If you're to take this to school authorities, you might get clarity: however, you'll need all the material facts not emotions. They would not most likely reverse the termination letter though. Well, you might just be lucky!
If you then feel like it, take it up with legally. Possibly, get a lawyer: if you're fortunate, one of those no win, no fees. They are not a guarantee though.
There're lots of intricacies. We're not privy to 'em. Quick ones:
* was there a *performance* discussion between you and your host professor before
-- getting sick
-- when you returned before the letter
* who is *they* that gave the letter
-- host professor
-- dept/school
-- HR/students affairs
* what's the termination notice in the letter: one month, 3 mths
>
> Is it the right behaviour
>
>
>
If this is out of the blues, definitely it's not the right behaviour, neither is it the appropriate process. It gives you *strong* ground for redress: depending on the nuances which cannot be determined through a 'faceless' online Q&A.
If you're wondering if the postdoc can be terminated at will, well, in research parlance, yes it can. Same way non-tenured are at the mercy.
For postdocs, a factor is research advancement of the lab/institute/centre. If funding dries up, tough luck. If you're not contributing, ? is why would/should you 'occupy' space. It's a competitive world out there in research: fundings, grants ...
Nonetheless, your host professor could have assisted with soft landing when you commenced. Even at that, you ought to have been proactive
* engage, engage, engage
* enquire, research, enquire
[Postdoc Termination]
Kindly check on your institution's policies. There might just be a '*glimmer of hope*'
* for [Harvard, see postdoc termination process](https://postdoc.fas.harvard.edu/termination-process)
* [Yale's got similar](https://postdocs.yale.edu/faculty/terminations-resignations)
This is not a legal opinion/advice as contemplated in law
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You ask whether the way you have been treated is "right". There are several ways this could be interpreted. Is it right morally? Is it right legally? And what would you like to be an outcome?
If you were fired soley because you took sick leave, then yes, this is morally wrong, and i think few would disagree. Personally, I'd still consider it wrong it there were other factors at play, such as an underlying ongoing physical or mental health problem, or an on-going performance issue, but no performance management processes. This might not as widely shared.
Whether it is wrong legally will depend on the local laws where you are. In the US it might even depend on the state. You need to take local legal advice. Talk to your local union, postdoc association or public employment law help line. In the UK this would be the ACAS helpline. In the UK law says you can be dismissed for any reason in the first 2 years of employment without recourse unless it can be shown to be because of one of the "protected characteristics", which possibly of relevance here would be race and disability. After 2 years employment the reasons you can be dismissed are limited, and the process for firing someone long and complicated. However, most universities will have policies that go above and beyond the law.
The final question is to ask yourself what you would like to happen now. It is highly unlikely that you will get your job back. Many people just want an acknowledgement that they have been mistreated. If that's what you need, then please take the first part of this post as that. Legal remedy is generally limited to cash. As employment is a contract, this is generally limited to the losses you have suffered as a result of the employer breaching their side of the contract. In the UK for example this is what you would have been paid in this time before you got your next job, or one year's pay at maximum. Wrongful dismissal proceedings often take years.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/19
| 2,258
| 9,648
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduate engineering student at a highly competitive university. I am writing my thesis and I feel like I am making great number of silly mistakes. The worst thing is that I do not realize my mistakes unless someone else points out even though I spend hours trying to make sure I make no mistakes... For instance, I modeled a problem in my thesis. I made a mistake that is very obvious and I didn't even notice that simple mistake until someone pointed out. I am about to submit my thesis and I have no clue how to tell my supervisors about the mistake...
I feel really embarrassed before my supervisors. They have been acting nice as they know I am a very hardworking student. Around 4-5 months ago, they even told me that they would recommend me to any university in the world. But I am afraid that they may feel less enthusiastic when writing reference letters for me (coupled with observing some personal decisions of mine, I am the exact opposite of a person who has their feet on the ground, I always have very big goals and dreams) because of my consistent errors and because I disappointed them. I feel extremely dumb and have started to feel like I have dyslexia or a similar situation.
How should I tell my supervisors about this latest error? How do I cope with this?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know what you mean by "excessively", but yes, people make mistakes. I've written quite a lot, books, papers, and such. They always have mistakes. Even here, with a real time correction engine, I make mistakes. That is human nature.
One problem is that when we write we are thinking at two levels. The content level, which can be quite complex in academia, and the expression level. Our brain isn't the greatest at keeping these coordinated at all times, though we generally do a pretty good job of it.
But there is a further problem and that is that it is very difficult to proof and correct your own work. It is a brain problem again. When you read what you have written, your brain goes back into the content mode and you know that stuff. And so you know what you intended to write and so what your eyes tend to see is what you think you wrote, not what you actually wrote.
It is good to get fresh eyes on our writings. Editors do that pretty well, if they know even a bit about the content. We write things that don't make sense and when we read our own writings, our thought process tries to make sense of it and misses the errors.
If you can get a colleague to read and comment on your work it will help. If that is impossible, and you have to proof your own work, I suggest doing so in very small increments. A paragraph at a time, with lots of breaks. If you let your mind get into the flow then it will start to, again, "see" what you meant to write, not what you did write.
Yes, it is normal. I suspect that everyone (or nearly) does this. If it were uncommon then publishers wouldn't need to employ copy editors to assure the quality. Reviewers also catch a lot of missed things.
Don't obsess over it. Get help or work slow.
---
Edited to add: Since the topline question has changed a bit I suggest you just be open with your advisor. They make mistakes too. Do whatever is possible to make corrections.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: "How do I cope up with this?"
We don't know the extent of your "mistakes". You say in your comment it's basic mistakes and your supervisors must think you're crazy, but the only feedback we've heard you receive is that they're positive and recognize your hard work. Have they actually complained to you about the mistakes or is it just an internal worry?
It is classic for the best performing people to be the most critical of themselves, as that is often what pushes people further in the first place, but as long as you're on track and moving towards your goal, describing yourself as delusional or crazy from the supervisors perspective seems unnecessarily harsh.
Try to remember there are people in your position that instead of panicking about improving their quality of work, would not only refuse to admit their mistakes, but do their best to deceive their supervisors and later on editors or peer reviewers, actually deluding themselves, not taking a step back to fix the mistakes the way you seem to. These would be the crazy and deluded people, not someone in your position frantically working on improving their work. Being able to admit the mistakes quickly, take care of them and continously improve is about the best anyone can hope for, it's how we learn!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I would recommend: "I've made this mistake which I consider to be silly and I didn't spot it until it was pointed out despite what I considered through checking. Could you help me with any experience or tactics you've developed in your career to help with spotting this sort of mistake?"
Your supervisor is there to help you with exactly this kind of professional development - just ask. And almost every student has been through this experience.
As to dyslexia and other issues, it's is very common to be diagnosed late. If healthcare or counselling is easy to access where you are (perhaps through your university), it is certainly worth booking an appointment to discuss your fears. Take along some notes on how you think your brain is not behaving as it should to get the discussion started. It's also worth considering that you're currently going through a stressful time and that will be having an effect on your mental performance. They may be able to provide help in addressing that, as well as either ruling out or diagnosing and treating an underlying problem.
Hope it turns out well for you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As a scientist I think that you should focus on your work, and if there are errors, correct them and admit them (if they're out in the open before you could correct them). Science is about learning about the world, including learning about errors and misconceptions and correcting them. So finding errors is normal, and learning from them, and correcting them is the right thing in science.
You seem to carry a lot of psychological load around worrying so much about perfection, ambitions, what others think of you etc. Now this is of course to some extent natural, many people have such issues, and I cannot discount it, however you should tell yourself clearly that this stands in the way of your getting on with your work.
I recommend to take on a proper scientific work ethic when dealing with mistakes, rather than letting your worry about other people's perceptions and failure get the better of you. If you need to deal with the psychological issues, try to find counselling or treatment, but don't let them stand in the way of doing the right thing. It'll make you a better scientist. Many people in fact have much respect for somebody who admits a mistake. It's also a sign of competence.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: There are three facts that are very important to keep in mind here.
* **Everyone makes mistakes.** Lots of them. And, since mistakes are the way we learn and grow, the most impressive people are the ones who have made the most mistakes. Think of the person in your field you admire the most - I guarantee that they have made more mistakes than you ever have.
* **Almost every mistake seems silly in retrospect.** What is a "silly mistake"? Well, it's one that I can easily avoid making. But if I've just seen an example of that mistake, it's always easy to avoid making it again. The only time that a mistake is really *silly* is if you genuinely weren't paying attention when you made it.
* **No one is good at spotting their own mistakes.** This is why we have proofreaders, copyeditors, reviewers, and autocorrect!
But these things are points a lot of other great answers here have made. I want to focus more on something you mentioned at the end of your question. And please pay very close attention, because this is important!
**There is nothing wrong with having dyslexia or any other learning disability.** People with learning disabilities often require different tools in order to succeed, but they are not dumb or incapable, and once they have the tools they need, they can be amazing. In my inexpert opinion, I don't think anything you've told us so far indicates that you do have a learning disability (because, as I said, everyone makes mistakes that feel silly!) but if you're concerned about it, what you should do is get yourself tested. If you do have a learning disability, once it's identified you'll know where to look for the supports you need to succeed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Seems like from a third person point of view, what you describe is fairly normal. When I write just about anything - even some StackExchange answers - there are multiple revisions, and I sometimes goof with some panache. It just doesn't bother me all that much, although 2 decades ago it sure did much more than now!
I think you are holding yourself to an unrealistic standard. Any creative work will have mistakes and revisions, be it of academic or artistic character.
You may well be at a point where stress is in a positive feedback loop and is self-reinforcing. If you haven't had any real no-school-work breaks in a while, maybe take a day or two for yourself - go daydream, play music, stare at the sky, whatever, but don't think about academic work, and above all: don't blame yourself for "wasting time" taking a break. The best people can run out of steam when they work hard continuously for a long time.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/19
| 749
| 3,206
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Ph.D. Applications went wrong this year**
I am currently a master's student in pure mathematics at a top university in the UK. This year I applied for PhDs across Europe and the US (10 applications), and got rejected from all of them.
I topped in my undergraduate university, which is not very well known, and had good recommendation letters. I think that I was immature in my applications (especially in my statement of purpose), and this is the main reason why they didn't go so well.
I am still interested in doing a Ph.D. in pure math, and so I would like to reapply again next year. However, I am unsure what to do in order to improve my applications. I expect that finishing my Master's with good grades will be good, but I can't just wait a whole year without doing anything.
**Tips for reapplying + Filling a gap year**
Do you think that doing another Master's will help me improve my applications? My current Master's is just one year, so I think that another Master's will help me get closer to where I need to be in terms of math to start a Ph.D. Plus, it will also give me time to mature a little bit more, and help me fill in this gap year.
However, this feels like a very big commitment. But still, I don't see many more options to continue studying pure math next year otherwise, as there isn't really any possibility of doing research assistantships and the like in pure math. Do you have any other suggestions for how I can fill this gap year?<issue_comment>username_1: I had a friend who found a research position at her University (US) during her gap year. She described that experience as the reason why she later pursued a Ph.D. She consequently recommended that to other people thinking about getting into academic research.
Though I can't tell you what to do, I think getting some real research or work experience in your field is more valuable than getting another master's degree. Especially if you get a publication out of that experience.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It seems your concerns are not on your academic preparation, but on your person maturation.
This is a very personal aspect, however if your academic track and your topic knowledge are above the minimum requirements to pursue a PhD (i.e. : you have good marks and you feel confident on tackling the unknown), I would suggest that instead of applying to a Master you look for research positions in big tech/finance companies or universities. It may be not close to pure math, but it will not hurt you.
You can also do something *completely* unrelated, like taking a part-time job, doing a semester abroad volunteering with some research institution/studente exchange program or some volunteering (since it seems immediate material needs or money are not a concern to you, you may afford that).
Finally, you may thing about pursuing a PhD on your own, looking for grants and applying to them: in many part of the world there are bodies to fund research based on applications, a PhD is then simply a research position with some link to some university professors, rather different than the US system where you get enrolled in a PhD program.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/04/19
| 453
| 1,818
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m making a presentation, and wanted to use some images from an AI tool as sort of stock imagery. How would I properly cite them? I’m making them myself using Midjourney, but could find no guidance on this. I would also be curious if that’s different from images made with other models such as a public open source Stable Diffusion model.<issue_comment>username_1: I think that in the short term it is best if you just name the tool(s) you used. Longer term there may still be a question about who/what the creator of such an image should be. Where does any "creativity" lie?
I'll note that in the US, at least, the copyright office of the government has decided that AI generated images can't be copyrighted, implying that the AI itself isn't a creator. Whether creativity will be attributed to the person directing the AI, when that happens, might still be an open question.
But you lose nothing by mentioning your tools, in any case.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The authorship and citation quagmire will remain with us for some times to come. Until then, we continue with principle of ethics.
>
> making them myself using Midjourney, ... I would also be curious if that’s different from images made with other models such as a public open source Stable Diffusion model.
>
>
>
Irrespective of `Midjourney`, `Leonardo.ai`, or even `visualgpt`making extensive use of `Stable Diffusion` under the hood, the question remains, *who is the author/owner*.
For now, one might play it safe with
* ... *image generated by author through AI generation using [tool]* ...
* *image AI generated by author using [tool]*
This approach will not be far off from how we handle Tables and visual representation of models/concepts that we use in our manuscript.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/19
| 1,329
| 5,711
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a group project due next month and I have had to deal with a difficult partner. This is for my dissertation and I have spent the academic year working on it mostly alone with some input from my partner here and there. I felt sorry for my partner so I continued working with them despite the lack of effort on their part.
I have recently been dealing with some health issues and so was unable to attend a presentation our supervisor had asked us to complete with some other PhD students for input on our dissertation. I asked my partner to complete it which I know was a mistake but I could not make it as I was in the hospital. I found out that my partner didn't attend the meeting and was outside the room and didn't see anyone go in. I can't verify this and my supervisor is incredibly angry with the two of us.
I emailed my supervisor to tell them what had happened on my end, why I couldn't make it and that I had asked my partner to mention it. I have emailed apologising and asking for another meeting to discuss the next steps but my supervisor has not replied to me. I know my supervisor likely has seen the message as they have been actively communicating with other groups but they have yet to reply to me.
I know that I made plenty of mistakes and I fully own up to them. However, my project is due soon and I need my supervisor to approve some things so that I can complete it. What do I do?<issue_comment>username_1: Your question is a bit difficult to parse, so excuse me if I do not get the details right.
I would advise you to take the emotions of your professor into account. Professors can be very busy, especially now when semesters are about to end. Your professor scheduled an important meeting and neither of you showed up. I in lieu of the professor would be quite angry / annoyed and I know that it is best not to answer important emails while angry or in a bad mood. I also know that meetings in person would be preferable, but since I do not like to confront people, I personally would need to give myself a push in order to arrange this meeting.
If this happened today, wait a couple of days and then try to see the professor in person. You should take some of the blame, since you did not inform the professor in person of your inability to attend beforehand and you should apologize for unprofessional behavior. You should also realize that you are asking the professors to reorganize the professors's schedule and that you have imposed on him. I am not sure of the exact context, but you might have committed some imprudent acts before.
Now, if your supervisor is not willing to talk to you after a cool-down period, then you have a much bigger problem, because your supervisor would then also behave unprofessionally. In the education business, one has to deal with immature students that make stupid mistakes. A department head or head of program should be able and willing to step in, since under these circumstances, supervision would be impossible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Professor here, so I'll try to give you an idea of what's going inside of your advisor's mind, to help you modulate your response.
I supervise dozens of group projects a year, and almost without exception, the reason group projects fail is that both (or more) group members were relying on others to do the work, nobody did any work for weeks, then they all panic and start pointing fingers. When a responsible student gets a bad partner, I usually hear about it quickly (say, after the partner missed their first deadline for drafts) and the problem gets solved: either the partner realizes he/she can't just coast, or I split the group. This is not saying that you can't get sick, that your partner is not dumping the work on you, and it was not really a miscommunication issue. That might be all true. But it's that on my list of email to answer, ahead of you I have students who did their work, have interesting research results, and are not expecting me to solve a back-and-forth about who said what, who did what, and who was supposed to be there. I know you deserve an answer, and I'll eventually get to you, but there are others ahead of you.
Now, if you and your partner were a no-show to a scheduled presentation, what you are telling me is that you don't value my time. That does not mean that you don't *want* my time (you obviously do), but that you don't respect my time. So if your problem was 10th on my list of things to do, it just became 100th.
How you solve your problem: first, take responsibility for the problems in the group project. Tell your partner he/she either shapes up or you are going to request that the group be dissolved/changed/reassigned, whatever. Or do the project yourself and let him/her take undeserved credit. You need to move past this bad situation and learn from it. A big part of academic work is recognizing bad collaborators early in the process and cutting them off. Second, you will have to slowly gain your professor's trust. Wait for his/her reply, as he/she will eventually get to you. Show up on time, and prepared. Don't tell him/her your excuses or reasons, but what you are doing to solve the problems. Keep your promises. Send emails with positive updates. Slowly the professor will start looking forward to your updates and start replying. And unless you were in a car accident and in a coma at the hospital, never ever be a no-show to a meeting.
As others have suggested, you could camp outside of the professor's office and try to force an in-person meeting. If you go that route, just be light on explaining your reasons/excuses and heavy on showing your work and results.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/20
| 1,401
| 5,589
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a father trying to help my son understand his college options.
My son is looking at a liberal arts school in the United States that used to be quite competitive. From the college statistics web sites, I see that it now has a very high acceptance rate (>85%; although around 30% of students who are accepted attend). (The acceptance rate is high relative to what I consider to be the college's peer institutions.) I also know that, in the past ten years, there have been two scandals large enough to make the regional or national news (one with a racial component, one with a sexual component). I personally don't think that the scandals reflect any systematic issues, and I have no reason to think that the quality of instruction was affected. But I am wondering to myself whether the school hasn't developed a bad reputation of some sort.
If it has, then I would have these concerns:
* Morale might be low on campus.
* If the school has become less selective, then presumably that will lower academic standards.
* If the school has a bad odor, it might make my son less attractive to job recruiters or graduate schools in the future.
What sources or resources can I use to evaluate whether this school has developed a poor reputation?<issue_comment>username_1: Universities are typically quite large institutions, with lots of students, so two scandals in ten years would not generally cause an observer to believe that there is any systematic issue that would warrant a loss of reputation. There are various sources you can consult to look at university rankings and reputations with respect to particular issues. I will give you some examples here, but they are the tip of the iceberg.
**University academic rankings:** For US university rankings you could look at the [US News and World Report](https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities), the [Times Higher Education rankings](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-united-states), the [QS Top Universities ranking](https://www.mastersportal.com/ranking-country/82/united-states.html), the [Forbes university rankings](https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/), and many others. (Some of these are only rankings for top universities, but some will include complete rankings on all colleges/universities within a broad scope.) These rankings typically incorporate information about research, teaching and other academic issues, some of which may be far removed from the quality of instruction for an undergraduate student.
**Reputation and rankings with respect to particular issues:** With a bit of search work you can probably find some ratings and rankings of US universities from various lobby groups, usually with respect to some aspect of their mission. For example, the educational advocacy group *The Fire* provide ratings and [rankings](https://rankings.thefire.org/rank) of US universities with respect their policies and practices on academic freedom, free speech and due process. Other advocacy organisations might provide ratings or rankings on other issues of importance to them.
**News coverage of universities:** Another way to examine university reputation is to look at news coverage (with standard caveats on believing what you read in the news). News organs that comment specifically on higher education include the [*Times Higher Education*](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/academic/news), [*Inside Higher Ed*](https://www.insidehighered.com/news), [*The Chronicle of Higher Education*](https://www.chronicle.com/), [*US News (Education)*](https://www.usnews.com/education), [*EdSurge*](https://www.edsurge.com/news/topics/higher-education), [*CampusReform*](https://campusreform.org/), [*University World News*](https://www.universityworldnews.com/page.php?page=UW_Main), [*The College Fix*](https://www.thecollegefix.com/), [*The Diamondback*](https://dbknews.com/), and many others. Most of these news organs should allow you to do a search for articles pertaining to a particular college/university of interest. So long as you are able to read the news with a critical eye, this may alert you to any systematic issues relating to the university that might be a concern.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There's a world university ranking that relies only on reputation: the [THE World Reputation Rankings](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2022/reputation-ranking). That might be the resource you're looking for. The caveat is that last I saw, once out of the top universities, it's hard to rank university reputation because the differences are not significant.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: This is not a complete answer to my question, but this website has compiled the *U.S. News and World Report* college rankings from the past thirty years or so. That makes it possible to observe trends in a college's ranking from that one source, at least.
<https://andyreiter.com/datasets/>
>
> Since 1983, the magazine *U.S. News and World Report* has been ranking
> US universities and colleges. While I do not in anyway endorse the
> specific methodology used to construct these rankings, I know that
> many academic institutions and scholars use these rankings in their
> research and institutional assessment. I was in turn frustrated that
> historical rankings were not easily available anywhere online. The
> spreadsheets above contain all of the rankings from 1985-present for
> liberal arts colleges and from 1984-present for universities.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/20
| 1,106
| 4,324
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a 3rd year PhD student. I am being pushed by my supervisor to apply for scholarships which will lengthen my PhD by two or even four more years. I enjoy what I do, and I have had good outcomes so far (in terms of research).
Why is everyone rushing to finish a PhD in three or four years? What are the hiring drawbacks in academia for hiring a PhD who needed 4+ years to finish? Should I accept these scholarships and lengthen my PhD or is it better to not?<issue_comment>username_1: The length of your doctoral program, per se, means little. What you accomplish and the connections you make with people mean a lot.
However, the tricky part is that the overall economy changes and that affects the academic marketplace. Had I finished in four years instead of seven, I'd have been in a completely different and extremely hot market. But it died rapidly. The opposite can happen as well. And it is hard to predict.
But, if, in your field, the market is hot and seems like it will stay the way for a bit, it would be better to finish early than to delay. Again, the opposite is also true.
But better than thinking about the time, think about how you can build resources for your early career, both through your research and through establishing a circle of contacts and potential collaborators. Some people are able to establish a (modest) reputation even as students if your field has conferences and such.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: "My question is: why everyone is rushing to finish a PhD in 3 or four years?" In many places it's very hard to get hold of scholarships for a longer PhD period, so they run out of money. Or they want/need to earn more, want a better life, start a family etc.
I don't think the reason is hiring drawbacks (in those cases I'm aware of, which are of course not representative for what goes on worldwide in all subjects), I think the reason is many candidates can't sustain a longer PhD period well financially.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: People on hiring committees are interested in your academic qualifications, but they are not going to be particularly interested in whether your PhD took three years, or five, six, etc. Most people who read your résumé are not attentive enough to even notice the time taken, and even if they do, it is only likely to raise a concern or question if it is an extreme deviation from the norm. Perhaps there might be some questions in marginal cases where a PhD takes less than three years or more than eight, but aside from those extreme cases people are unlikely to care. As your career progresses and your PhD degree recedes into history it will matter less and less. So yes, stick with your PhD program and enjoy the extra time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: The other answers talk about what happens at the end of a PhD and in the first few years after the PhD. This is the wrong way to think about it. Instead, think about your entire career.
You did not mention your personal and academic goals, so I will focus on finances in this answer.
It is quite common for workers to earn more as they gain experience. Either their employers increase their pay because the experience is valuable, or more commonly workers are able to switch to a higher paying because they gained experience. PhD students usually see smaller increases in pay than other workers. In recent years, the increases have been well below inflation.
As an example, let us assume you work until you reach the age of 65. if you get $37,000/year as a PhD student in 2023 and finish your PhD in 2024 at age 30, at age 65 you might earn $110,000/year in 2023 dollars with 35 years of post-PhD experience. If you finish your PhD in 2023 at the age of 29, then at age 65 you might earn $110,000/year in 2023 dollars with 36 years of experience.
Finishing your PhD one year earlier will get you ($110,000-$37,000)=$73,000 in 2023 dollars.
Certainly the details will vary greatly between individuals. If you choose to adjunct teach creative writing for your entire career, your income may never go up. If you start a successful company immediately after finishing your PhD, the extra year might get you tens of millions of dollars.
Many of the enjoyable aspects of a PhD can be continued after you complete your PhD.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/21
| 441
| 1,811
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a (math) paper that uses a result from an older paper that I coauthored with X. I proved some of the other things in the paper, but this particular result was proved entirely by X after I sent them an email asking about it, which ultimately led to the collaboration with X.
In my new paper I would like to somehow show my appreciation for X's contribution, without saying "They did it, not me" (I suppose this would be taboo). What would be a good way of expressing this in the Acknowledgements section?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, it is simpler than that. You can, as I once did in an AMS journal, mark a proof or the statement of the theorem as "Proof by X".
Normally the Ack section is for acknowledging those who aren't authors. So, if you mean that X isn't a coauthor on *this* paper you can add, there, your thanks for past collaborations that influenced this one especially for developing the proof of Theorem A.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This other person already receives acknowledgement for their work through the fact that you will cite the joint paper you did together where the proof is located. If you would like to do more than that (which sounds quite reasonable to me) then you can specifically note in your new paper that X proved the theorem on their own. There is nothing taboo about this at all, since it is a standard aspect of research that co-authors may contribute different aspects of a paper.
As far as how to set this out in your new paper, you don't need to agonise over this. Just make it a short parenthetic remark when you discuss the relevant theorem --- here is an example:
>
> Here we will make use of Theorem 4 in Dmath and X (2015) (actually proved entirely by X). This theorem shows that...
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/21
| 535
| 2,185
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied to graduate school in USA for Fall 23. Recently I got an email from the director of graduate admission saying that there is no TA/Funding available and initially all the offers are made for this year. I was too late in submitting my application for some reason. I had applied to this university in mid-March and the application deadline was in January. In the email, the director asked whether I would like to defer my application for Spring 24 or not. What does "defer" mean? Is there any chance of Funding/GTA in Spring 24?<issue_comment>username_1: Defer usually means delay and that they will hold a place for you. But...
Ask the director. There is no way to know in general what the policy is. I suspect that it means you can get funding then, but don't depend on that guess. Ask.
And your acceptance into the program isn't clear from what you write. If you have been accepted, it is easier to defer the start date than funding.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You should ask for clarification, but it appears that the department is willing to keep your application and consider it again for admission in the spring of 2024. At that point, if there is a TA/RA available, you might receive an offer for a position starting in the spring of 2024.
Assuming that this is what is being offered, you should probably say that you would like your application to be considered for the spring of 2024.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In my math department, "deferring" an *application* does *not* mean anything about admission, nor about funding. It means that they'd *consider* your application in a later round, and *consider* you for funding at that time. No promises of either one, just that you missed the deadline for Fall 2023.
(Yes, in the U.S., in math, the application deadlines for Fall semesters are 8 or 9 months prior, essentially early in the preceding January. Also, in my dept, we typically commit funding for a 9-month school year, so there is no *new* funding available for Spring semesters. And we try to avoid admission-without-funding, so we rarely look at applications for admission to Spring semesters.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/21
| 1,513
| 6,352
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have found a question close to mine [Reference for candidate unfit for application](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43927/how-to-write-a-reference-request-for-a-candidate-that-i-see-unfit-for-the-applic) but not quite the same, and I have followed some of the advice already.
I'm an academic at a UK institute and a current master's student doing a project with me has asked me for a PhD application reference. I said yes when they first spoke to me about wanting to do a PhD (no specific post at that time) as I had no reason not to and they seemed enthusiastic. However, from working with them for over 4 months I don't believe they would be suitable. They have not demonstrated key skills needed, are requiring micromanaging to accomplish tasks, and generally appear quite lazy (and seem to think it's funny). I would not take them as a PhD student - especially seeing as this is their attitude knowing they have asked me for a reference.
I have had a second frank talk with them about PhDs, and that there is a good degree of autonomy in working and self-driven skill learning required for a successful PhD student. But their attitude has not changed since this chat (over a month ago). I could write a very lukewarm reference (which I have done before regarding students who are not outstanding but okay) or just say I can't write one. Although some posts on here are saying there are legal implications of the latter?<issue_comment>username_1: I am frequently in that situation, of being asked for a letter of reference by a mediocre student with good intentions (don't they all have good intentions?)
You already know your two options: (1) write a lukewarm letter or (2) renege your offer to write one. I don't like confrontations anymore than the next person, but the best approach is #2. I usually do it over email, and in a long message I explain my reasons. I give detailed feedback with specific examples, making sure it does not sound like I'm judging the person, but instead evaluating their performance. This can take longer than writing a lukewarm letter, but I find it to be the best solution for everyone. For example:
>
> I think that you are a good student who takes your work seriously. You always keep your appointments and you have a genuine interest in the research we do here. However, there are some areas in which you need improvement, e.g. A, B, C. I think that you have a bright future ahead of you, and what I recommend is that you take another research opportunity to improve your skills in A, B, and C, then ask that supervisor/advisor for a letter. You'll then be in much better shape for grad school applications.
>
>
>
The tone should be firm and polite.
This gives an out to the student, because if they are smart, they should not want a letter from you anyway. But some students insist, and I then write the lukewarm letter. The letter pretty much says "this student worked at my lab from this date to that date, and they were on time", or whatever truthful positive thing I can say. Anybody who writes and reads letters should be able to read through.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: *...They have not demonstrated key skills needed, are requiring micromanaging to accomplish tasks and generally appear quite lazy (and seem to think it's funny). I would not take them as a PhD student - especially seeing as this is their attitude knowing they have asked me for a reference...*
If this is half-true, you simply cannot provide the student with an LoR.
Whatever about legalities, the reality of the situation is that your initial willingness to write an LoR for a then unproven student was predicated upon that student showing the requisite qualities in the intervening period.
The student plainly has not done this by your own careful assessment.
You cannot give even a lukewarm LoR to a student you adjudge unworthy for a number of reasons:
* The PhD supervisor at the other institution will be enraged and will make no secret of their displeasure about **you** to friendly academics in other universities.
* The PhD offering department will never again take *your* recommendations seriously after being disappointed in the calibre of this single candidate.
* The PhD offering institution may also never again rate *any graduate from your Department*. (This can occur if the postgraduate admissions dean keeps mental or physical records of good and bad PhD students and their *almae matres*. I had a personal experience of this effect.)
* The postgraduate under current supervision by you seems to regard research - and perhaps academia in general - as something that they can laugh their way through. Getting an LoR towards a PhD program will only serve to demotivate them even more!
* The behaviour of this student will impact on the morale of the others in that research group, possibly even on other postgrads in the department. Maintaining the professional respect of your group members is vital to your career. You really can't let this sloppiness and jokery persist. Pretty soon this student will be making a joke of other students' efforts - if they haven't started to already.
It's time for a very frank conversation in your office.
I hope you haven't given this student the impression, e.g. by allowing him/her to firstname you, exchanging gossip, non-work related conversations, etc, that they enjoy a good personal relationship with you and that this will allow them to "take it past you". It's always easier to say no to someone who is just a work colleague and no more.
But either way it has to be a no.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This is going to get downvoted to hell, but I'm going to say it anyway...
Your first duty in this is to your student. It's not your job to gatekeep admissions to a PhD programme at an institution you don't work for. Therefore, write the most favourable reference you can *without actually lying*.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Your university will have a policy on references, including what can and can't be included. It will certainly handle with references for students that don't do well. You should follow that guidance and ask a more experienced colleague if in doubt. Often this includes clarification of what you will be able to do to the student.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/04/21
| 2,771
| 11,182
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently studying undergraduate physics at Cambridge UK (and a UK citizen). However, I've found the lack of rigor in the math we use extremely frustrating. I've dabbled in math texts (Spivak's Calculus and Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right) and absolutely loved proof based math, though I appreciate this is at a first-year level.
Does anyone have advice on how to switch to mathematics after a physics degree? I've already seen suggestions to pursue a Masters or Bacc in the US but the issue with that is I couldn't pay for it. Is "catching up" during the first couple of years of a math PhD an option? I've seen even highly competitive programmes such as Yale mention that it is possible to take remedial undergraduate courses during a PhD.
Alternatively, can anyone recommend a route through physics that would allow me to pick up more rigorous math? I've also looked at physics PhD programmes but these tend to require a broad base in physics that I'm slowly losing interest in.
Edit: the UK system means unfortunately switching majors/taking extra years as an undergraduate isn't possible. The closest would be completing the "Part III" (masters) math course but this tends to restrict physics students to courses such as QFT(quantum field theory).<issue_comment>username_1: For doctoral study in Math in the US, switching from a Physics undergraduate is reasonable. You wouldn't need to do another undergraduate degree and the funding for a doctorate is much more likely than that for a masters. Most doctoral students work as TAs with full, though modest, funding.
But, you are a bit light in math at the moment. A course in Analysis, one in Abstract Algebra, and maybe one in Topology would greatly enhance your prospects.
Another option is to switch to math where you are, though it will likely delay you for a bit.
Talk to your advisor about what is possible to increase your theoretical math skills and whether you can do that within your current major or not. Talk to someone in the math department.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In the US, you indeed have to pay for Masters. However, if you enroll into a combined Masters/PhD programme, then usually they will pay you a scholarship that will cover both your tuition and living expenses. For that, you will have to work as a Research Assistant or, more probably, as a Teaching Assistant. Grading homeworks and teaching problem-solving sessions for advanced courses will be difficult to you during your first year, but you probably will be offered to teach introductory courses, something at the level of Axler's book.
As you rightly mentioned, many schools in US will enable you to take remedial undergraduate courses during your Masters/PhD studies. I am aware of such a case.
So I see no problem here.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If you are studying at Cambridge you must be taking Natural Sciences. This course teaches physics, but also chemistry, biology, materials science, plant science, etc., so to fit it all in there may very well be less of an emphasis on rigorous maths, especially in the early stages.
On the positive side, Cambridge lets you specialise more and more during the second, third and fourth years, and should definitely have the opportunity to focus on more mathematical subjects. Perhaps it is possible, for example, to take or audit courses taught by DAMTP (Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics), rather than the Cavendish?
When applying for a PhD at Cambridge, many students at DAMTP will be told to first do Part III of the Mathematics tripos - this is an option that I imagine is also open to you.
Alternatively, you could look into Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs), which are fully-funded Masters (1 year) + PhD (3 years) courses, where the masters can allow you to settle into a new subject area.
Consider talking to your Director of Studies at your college, who is quite literally there to discuss things like this.
**Edit:**
The [physics course handbook](https://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/files/physics_course_handbook_2022_2023_0.pdf) seems to indicate that it is indeed possible to do the Maths Part III. Be warned: it is notoriously hard!!!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> "I'm currently studying undergraduate physics at Cambridge UK (and a UK citizen). However, I've found the lack of rigor in the math we use extremely frustrating. I've dabbled in math texts (Spivak's Calculus and Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right) and absolutely loved proof based math, though I appreciate this is at a first-year level."
>
>
>
I agree with [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/195501/93303): You will have more opportunities for exposure to what you call "proof based math" in the more senior years of your undergraduate studies, and if that's not enough then in Part III [you can select courses from anywhere among pure mathematics, applied mathematics, statistics and theoretical physics](https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/part-iii/part-iii-guide-courses) (the latter including highly proof-based courses like quantum information, which is taught more as a math course than a physics course). Plenty of people do a PhD in pure math or applied math after an undergraduate or masters degree in physics. Also, Cambridge students have unusually long break periods between terms, during which you can study more pure mathematics on your own as you have already been doing, while still remaining in the natural sciences program which makes you much more likely to secure a job (whether in academia or elsewhere) after you get your degree.
>
> "Does anyone have advice on how to switch to mathematics after a physics degree?"
>
>
>
Take mathematical courses that are available to you during your undergraduate physics degree, continue reading mathematics books like the ones you mentioned, and ask people working in mathematical areas if they are working on any projects in which an undergraduate research assistant (you!) can participate. Be careful that you're really doing the right thing for you (it seems that one year ago you thought that physics was the wiser choice, and now you've changed your mind, so keep in mind that it can change again, and continue talking to as many people as you can in both fields: peers, students more senior to you, professionals, professors, advisors, etc.).
>
> "I've already seen suggestions to pursue a Masters or Bacc in the US but the issue with that is I couldn't pay for it."
>
>
>
The US isn't the only place that offers Masters degrees. Your own university has Part III of the Mathematical Tripos, and plenty of universities and institutes in Europe, Canada, etc. have Masters degrees with scholarships or lower costs than universities in USA. In Canada you usually get paid to do Masters degrees, but at your stage it might be better to aim to get into a PhD program, since you can switch from a PhD program into a Masters one if you want to (or have to) exit early.
>
> "Is "catching up" during the first couple of years of a math PhD an option? I've seen even highly competitive programmes such as Yale mention that it is possible to take remedial undergraduate courses during a PhD."
>
>
>
Yes. Catching up is what almost all PhD students do at the start of their PhD program, and taking undergraduate level courses as a PhD student is pretty much universally accepted.
>
> "Alternatively, can anyone recommend a route through physics that would allow me to pick up more rigorous math? I've also looked at physics PhD programmes but these tend to require a broad base in physics that I'm slowly losing interest in."
>
>
>
You can take mathematical courses whenever you have the option, continue studying rigorous mathematics during the unusually long Cambridge break periods, and you can try to work as a research assistant with mathematicians (I would be surprised if your college didn't send you information about the research assistantship program that we sent towards the end of Lent term 2023 by the way, since more than 50 Oxbridge students responded).
>
> "Edit: the UK system means unfortunately switching majors/taking extra years as an undergraduate isn't possible. The closest would be completing the "Part III" (masters) math course but this tends to restrict physics students to courses such as QFT."
>
>
>
No, in [Part III courses are offered in](https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/part-iii/part-iii-guide-courses):
* Algebra,
* Algebraic Geometry,
* Analysis and PDEs,
* Combinatorics,
* Differential Geometry and Topology,
* "Foundations",
* Number Theory,
* Information and Finance,
* Probability, Statistics,
* Quantum Computation and Information and Foundations,
* Particle Physics and QFT,
* Reltivity and Cosmology,
* Applied and Computational Analysis,
* Astrophysics,
* Soft Matter and Biological Physics, and
* Continuum Mechanics
"**[Students may select courses freely from those available, subject to the constraints of the lecture timetable, regardless of which department they registered with or which application stream they applied through.](https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/part-iii/part-iii-guide-courses)**" so you are not restricted to taking QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and similar courses.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I did NatSci at Cambridge and I have a friend who did exactly what you describe, i.e. switching from physics to maths though that was in the US. My answer is based on this experience.
The answer depends on how much maths you did. I was mostly interested in experimental physics and I couldn't even understand what my maths friends were talking about let alone do a PhD in maths. If your experience is similar then I think your only option would be to start afresh with a maths degree. I'm sure you'll find a university happy to take your money if you want to do this - Cambridge may even be willing to do it. Discuss it with your tutor.
My friend did theoretical physics, and pretty advanced theoretical physics at that. He learned quantum field theory with irritating ease and even got started in string theory. This meant he learned vastly more maths than I did, though still far less than a student doing the Maths Tripos at Cambridge would learn. He then went on to do a maths PhD in the areas of maths he had learned as an undergrad. I can't give any more detail since I understand next to nothing of his research, and he was studying in the US not Cambridge. I guess when you talk about restricting courses to QFT you mean you could only do a PhD in areas of maths you had already studied, and that would be physics related areas like the maths used in QFT.
You don't say how much maths you have learned, but from the tone of your question I'd guess it's nowhere near my friend's experience (so far). NatSci does allow you to take advanced theoretical physics courses and learn the associated maths, but as you say this would leave you lacking in many areas that maths students study and hence limit the areas you could do research in. But my friend managed it and last time I spoke was thoroughly enjoying his work.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/21
| 1,027
| 4,121
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have worked in a top public university in the US collaborating with well-known people and have been contemplating applying to Australian National University Canberra for another postdoc. I am an international person and will be on visa. Wanted to learn from people how life could be different (better/worse) with postdoc salaries and benefits in Australia (e.g., medical expenses, which feels scary in the US). I have a dependent partner who is also skilled to find a job. Would also love to know about societal acceptance of international people in and around Canberra.<issue_comment>username_1: Australia is a multi-cultural country. Sure, there are idiots here and there, but the majority of the population is very sensitive towards diversity, especially universities. You will find people speaking up instead of brushing it off.
As for medical, it is far cry from the USA. You can look this up. You can also look up the premium you'll be paying; a family of four cover is around $300-$350 AUD per month.
My only complains about Canberra: too quiet and cold during winter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The ANU is (arguably) the highest ranked university in Australia and consistent ranks within the top 50 universities in the world (roughly commensurate with universities like NYU or the Sorbonne). (See discussion in comments below on ranking systems.) It is an elite research university and is a nice place to study and work. The ANU has an extremely successful research record including many world-class research groups and hubs, and consistent success in attracting grant funding and producing research output. It also has a substantial cohort of international students and is a highly attractive study destination for students from China and other Asian countries (mostly because it is geographically closer than elite universities in Europe and the US).
Canberra is the hub of the federal government in Australia and it is a highly educated and affluent population (probably somewhat similar to the central parts of Washington DC, but at lower scale). It is a comfortable place to live and work, though perhaps somewhat expensive relative to some other cities. The city has a substantial proportion of non-white migrants and is only slightly less multicultural than major Western metropolises like London. Migrants make up about 28% of the Canberra population (see this [relevant news article](https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6004901/migrants-are-moving-to-canberra-in-record-numbers/)) and within the central areas near the city and the ANU the proportion would be higher again (since many of the outer suburban areas of the city are less multicultural than the mean). Canberra has a substantial population of migrants from England, China, India, the Phillipines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and many other countries. No-one will bat an eyelid at a non-white migrant living in the city or working at ANU; it is so common as to be banal.
You can find information on the academic salary scale at ANU [here](https://services.anu.edu.au/human-resources/enterprise-agreement/schedule-1-academic-staff-salary-schedule-0) (note that the unit of measurement in this schedule is $AUD, not $US). Postdocs are typically Level A appointments, but I'm sure the position description for the position you are contemplating specifies this. You can find information on health coverage for temporary visa holders in Australia from the [Department of Home Affairs](https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/health/adequate-health-insurance) (which is based in Canberra). Broadly speaking, migrants on a temporary visa are not eligible for Medicare coverage. Most major health insurers in Australia have policies for [healthcare coverage for overseas students](https://www.medibank.com.au/overseas-health-insurance/guides/articles/which-health-cover-for-my-visa/) and my (vague) understanding is that this is quite a bit less expensive and scary than in the US.
*Full Disclosure: I am an alumnus of the ANU and have also worked there as a researcher.*
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/21
| 808
| 2,681
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have found that it is common in Poland to do multiple PhDs:
* [dr. hab. <NAME>, CEO @ IDEAS NCBR, Associate Professor @ UW, Warsaw, PL](https://www.linkedin.com/in/piotr-sankowski-80a6875/)
1. Polish Academy of SciencePolish Academy of Science
Ph.D., PhysicsPh.D., Physics
2003 - 2009
2. University of WarsawUniversity of Warsaw
Ph.D., Computer SciencePh.D., Computer Science
2002 - 2005
* [dr. <NAME> (<NAME>), Assistant professor @ Institute of Computer Science, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, PL](https://th.if.uj.edu.pl/%7Edudaj/)
1. Jagiellonian University, Cracow,
PhD in Theoretical Physics (thesis)
2006-2012
2. Jagiellonian University, Cracow,
PhD in Theoretical Computer Science (thesis)
2004-2010
and, these people are very successful.
There are lots of posts in Academia.SE describing the negative aspects of doing multiple PhDs.
* [Is doing two PhDs a good path?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17232/is-doing-two-phds-a-good-path)
* [Is a second PhD ever necessary?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29764/is-a-second-phd-ever-necessary)
* [Why is having multiple PhDs frowned upon?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/110064/why-is-having-multiple-phds-frowned-upon)
As far as I realize, most of the answerers are US-based.
What are the negative aspects of multiple PhDs outside of North America?<issue_comment>username_1: As @BryanKrause mentions, if you go through the acknowledgments of one of the people's mentioned Ph.D. thesis, you will read right away that they solved one problem that led to two theses, one in physics and one in computer science. The problem is related to information theory which has applications in both statistical mechanics and computer science, so it makes sense that they got 2 PhDs out of it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Short answer: there are no negative aspects except for the waste of time.
You will not impress any academics by having two PhDs, in North America or anywhere else in the world. It shows either lack of focus, or that you switched fields. In the later case, the only PhD that counts is the one in the subject you are trying to get a job. A friend of mine had a tenure track position in one field, but wanted to work in another field. He did a second PhD and is now tenured at another department.
Non-academics might be impressed, but it seems to be a long route to gather extra attention at the cocktail party. Will it impress people in industry? I'd guess that the farther away they are from academia, the more impressed. But at the end it's about your skills.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/22
| 1,267
| 5,392
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been applying for PhD and got rejected by eight schools so far in the US, the UK and Canada.
I just completed my MSc in the UK with distinction. My supervisor who is a professor write me a good reference based on my independent research in my thesis, but I keep getting rejected for a PhD.
Any suggestion on how I can submit an outstanding application to get accepted for PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: Firstly, PhDs are really competitive and it isn't out of the ordinary to get rejected. You have said your supervisor has written a good reference but have you asked them to look at you applications? It's a big ask now you have graduated but I've generally been okay with discussing applications with my students if they ask.
Some other points:
1. Is there a specific topic you want to study and are you applying for PhDs on that topic, or writing your own thesis topic outlines and trying to get funding for that. As a supervisor I want to know a student wants to work in my specific area and isn't just applying for any PhD topic going in my general field. You want enthusiasm and dedication from a student.
2. Did you get good grades in your masters/ is the supervisor likely to be writing you a good reference?
3. Have you considered getting a job that does not require a PhD but is in academia - you haven't mentioned you field, but lab assistants sometimes don't need PhD. This is a opportunity to gain more experience and possibly get to know a supervisor who will support an application.
4. Are you learning some skills that make you stand out over other candidates? Have you shown some autonomy outside your core masters work that suggests you are a good PhD candidate (i.e publishing masters work - which should be done with the masters supervisor).
without knowing more detail this is the most advice I can offer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There's a misconception that applying to PhD programs is like applying to undergrad, but harder. PhD programs are more like apprenticeships. There are programs that accept students based only on applications, and then try to match the applicant with an advisor. But the best programs have too many great applicants, and the advantage goes to those applicants that are already matched to a professor in the program. Actually, nothing in your application matters if a professor on there inside tells the admissions committee "I want this student". It's not just a good strategy to try gain admission, but I can't imagine wanting to attend a program where I don't know a good potential advisor to start with. Attend conference and speak with potential advisors. Ask your former advisor for introductions. Don't obsess about "top programs", obsess about "top advisors"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It is difficult to provide anything but a broad answer to this question as there are very few details.
It seems likely from the context of your question that you would be an international application to the US or Canada. In this case the first issue is funding, or more precisely who will pay for your funding.
In the humanities scholarships or other means of supporting students (such as institutional or supervisor support) are *very* limited and tuition can be quite high, depending on the location of the school. In Ontario, tuition fees for international students are around ~CAD$ 25k, and many state schools have comparable levels (tuition and related fees vary quite a bit by state or province). As a result, schools accept only a very small number of international applicants because there’s no $$ to support them.
In the STEM, grants are more common but grants are not infinite and faculty prefer to fund in-state or domestic students simply because these students require less support.
If you applied to schools in Ontario, the situation is [far from rosy at some of them](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/university-of-guelph-enrolment-science-physics-1.6815673) and schools are looking to pause admission, and possibly close programs. (Although this piece is about undergrante and MSc programs at one specific university, it should reflect an overall malaise in the funding of universities in this province.) Laurentian University in Ontario [filed for bankrupcy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Laurentian_University_financial_crisis) a few years ago. There are rumours circulating that some schools will offer no entrance scholarships to *Canadian* students this year. So if you applied to schools in Ontario, you might be a casualty of the financial crunch of these institutions, irrespective of how good you are as a candidate.
Overall, applying “cold” to universities as an international student is now a much more difficult proposition since few departments and supervisors are now inclined to takes chances on unknown candidates.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Did you have the results of your MSc before applying to the PhD programmes? If not I would reapply next year with this in hand, and try your best to get a publication from your Master's thesis. This would strengthen your application. Also how strong were your letters of recommendation? They also go a long way in making you look like a desirable candidate, so in the next cycle ask people who you know will write very strong recommendations for you. Good luck!
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/22
| 4,764
| 19,752
|
<issue_start>username_0: On the syllabus of an elective college course, I have stated that a student who plagiarizes once will receive a zero for the assignment. A student who plagiarizes twice will receive zeros for the assignments and may withdraw or take an F for the course. So, a student in an elective course submitted an assignment created by AI (artificial intelligence). She did not deny it, but asked for the chance to submit another essay in its place. With some misgivings, I agreed to this. As I was grading the journals due that day, I found that her new work was also created by AI. I commented on this and she apologized via email, "explaining" that she had submitted the journal after the meeting in which I'd agreed to let her rewrite her essay.
At this point, I can either still let her rewrite the essay and warn her yet again, or tell her that under the circumstances, I cannot accept a rewrite from her. She could have told me during our meeting that she had again submitted plagiarized work.
What do you think I should do?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure why you ask. You made the consequences clear. For this assignment a zero seems clearly in order. Failing the course doesn't seem out of order, though it is a bit harsh.
Decide whether there is any reason to believe this student will behave properly in the future. Letting them skate by won't work to change their behavior.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is hard, but also common. You have to fail her in the course. The usual student response varies from fessin' up to full denial until you can show hard evidence, then they go into "you're ruining my life over a small mistake!" A small minority of students know that it's more work for you to go through than to give them yet another break. In my institution, the administration puts all of the burden on the professor, and students know it. Still, I take the time to go through it. Students talk a lot about their professors, and having the reputation of a pushover will only bring more of that type of student into your classes. Usually, the student drops the course once they know you will be giving them an F, and if the drop deadline has passed, they go to the counseling center and get a late drop extension for "mental health reasons." It's an evolutionary arms race.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience, most universities have specific policies and procedures for dealing with academic misconduct by students. These are the applicable policies in such cases and they will typically override what an individual instructor puts in a course syllabus. Universities usually do not give discretion to academics to formulate their own rules and punishments for academic misconduct, so the conditions you have stated in your syllabus might not be binding (depending on the degree of discretion granted under university policy).^
I recommend that you immediately read your university policy and procedures on academic misconduct and seek assistance in applying those policies and procedures to the present case. For a second infraction, this would almost certainly involve some kind of formal escalation to a disciplinary process under the procedure, which usually involves some kind of hearing with the Head of School or a relevant delegate. If you are unsure of what to do, talk to your Head of School or to a relevant staff member in the ethics office of the university.
As a secondary matter, unless you have advice to the contrary, you should generally avoid formulating your own rules and punishments on academic misconduct in your course syllabus, and instead refer students to the general university policies and procedures that operate in these cases. If you are unsure, seek advice from your Head of School to see what you are allowed to put in the syllabus. It is possible that your existing syllabus could cause problems for the university, if it is inconsistent with general policies for dealing with academic misconduct.
---
^ By stating a specific punishment on your syllabus, it is possible that you may have imposed a "cap" on the level of punishment the student can receive based on their right not to be misled on university policies by your syllabus. Aside from this possibility, the university policy and procedure will typically override rules and punishments formulated by individual lecturers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: A slightly different answer. Though of course, I agree with the others that say you should check your institution's policies before deciding whether / how to handle this on your own.
>
> On the syllabus...I...stated that a student who plagiarizes once will receive a zero for the assignment. A student who plagiarizes twice...may withdraw or take an F for the course.
>
>
>
This is a very reasonable policy. You should have stuck with it.
>
> a student...asked for the chance to submit another essay in its place. With some misgivings, I agreed to this.
>
>
>
Mistake! What's the point of having a policy if you're not going to follow it? I hope you at least (1) did not agree to give her full credit, and (2) will file a report so that she cannot have a new "first offense" in a different class.
>
> As I was grading the journals due that day, I found that her new work was also created by AI...she apologized via email, "explaining" that she had submitted the journal [before being caught on] her essay.
>
>
>
Your policy probably didn't envision this scenario -- you may feel that a student who submits two plagiarized assignments before being caught deserves less of a penalty than a student who submitted one, got caught, and then submitted another anyway. Or you may feel that plagiarism is so manifestly unacceptable that the timing doesn't matter. Either way, make sure your policy accurately reflects what you want to happen.
>
> At this point, I can either still let her rewrite the essay and warn her yet again, or tell her that under the circumstances, I cannot accept a rewrite from her
>
>
>
The essay case is already adjudicated, you already agreed to let her rewrite that one. But this journal case is new and separate. As I see it, there are two options:
* You could treat this journal case as a first offense (since you've already agreed to overlook the essay case) and assign a zero on the journal. Or,
* You could treat this journal case as a second offense (since she did in fact plagiarize twice) and allow the student to withdraw or take an F for the course.
Personally, I would lean toward the former if she had voluntarily confessed about the journal. Since she didn't, I would lean toward the latter. But either is defensible at this point.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: If she is a student in good standing and you desperately want to somehow "de-escalate" the situation instead of applying the policy as written in the syllabus, just give her two-three hours to write a medium length essay on a different topic in a controlled environment. If she manages to do it well, then, at least, you'll know that she is capable of succeeding with this task on her own and for me that would be "sort of acceptable". If not, well, it is time to flunk someone then...
Downsides:
a) You'll lose two-three hours of your own time on proctoring outside your normal hours.
b) You'll create a precedent of deviating from the syllabus policy (though this late in the semester I doubt it will be easy to exploit by others).
c) You'll send the message to the student that it is OK to cheat if one can do what is required without cheating.
I have mixed feelings on the last one; in the American university culture cheating seems to be much more severely punished than in Russian one and the punishment is applied *regardless* of the student abilities, but, in my experience, at least modern American students cheat way more often than we cheated in 80's, so I'm not sure we aren't involved into some analogue of the infamous "war on drugs" here (I'm not saying that drugs should be legalized, even marijuana, I'm just saying that the approach should be way more sophisticated than just "jail everything that smokes"; the same with cheating/plagiarizing). I usually let my students to use whatever aids they want for take-home assignments as long as they can explain every step clearly when they submit it and they usually do not hide their sources and even cite most of them in return, but this is mathematics. You can do the same with essays (asking to elaborate on some passages or logical conclusions) but I admit that it may be more difficult there.
*Under no circumstances* would I do this for a student that shows low level of understanding of the course material in general or is of a "fighter for rights" or "whine your way through" type. The only way to deal with those is to apply all formal policies and procedures exactly to the letter. But if you believe that overall she is a bright student and a decent human being, you may try this approach.
Just my two cents.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: In my opinion, the answer lies in what you explicitly stated in [a comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/comments/530433) (emphasis mine):
>
> The problem is that I already told her she could rewrite the AI essay. At that point, I didn't know that she had just submitted a plagiarized journal assignment. Her "explanation," after she'd been caught, was that when she submitted the plagiarized work, she didn't know she'd be able to rewrite the plagiarized essay. **She gave no explanation as to why she didn't tell me about the second plagiarized submission when we met.**
>
>
>
Although I believe we should act within the rules, I do not believe we should bind ourselves to a blind reading or execution of rules regarding cheating. In my opinion, we should judge the intention and figure out the deserved outcome, before we see how well we can achieve that outcome within the rules.
So, look at her intention in the simplest explanation of the facts you have already, especially the one I highlighted above. It is that she is trying her best to get away with what she can. You didn't know about her second instance of plagiarism, so she didn't tell you because she hopes you didn't notice it.
Therefore, she has attempted to cheat twice on separate occasions, where the second occasion is in deliberately concealing information about her second plagiarism that you had not noticed in your meeting with her. This suffices to justify a full penalty of the sort you stated in your post (i.e. withdraw or accept F for that course).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: This is about the worst case behaviour. Ordinary plagiarism means that you find a solution created by someone who is reasonable competent in the subject, and copy it, without attribution. (If I submitted an answer and told you "I found this on the internet, and it was written by XYZ" that wouldn't be plagiarism, but obviously my answer would have zero value academically). In a non-academic setting where all that counts is getting the right answer in a legal way, that would actually be just fine.
This student relied on answers written by an idiot with an extreme case of Dunning-Kruger symptom: Totally incompetent, and too stupid to realise they are incompetent. I have seen maths answers where after two lines I thought "WTF why would anyone do this?", and two lines further on "This can't be right" and "This is completely wrong". Things that are called "AIs" today completely lack the "I" component. They are very good at taking any old nonsense or just making it up and turning it into very convincing words. So a complete failure is 100% deserved.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: I wonder whether part of the problem here is the definition of *plagiarize*. From [Merriam Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize):
>
> to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
>
>
>
What is "another"? Normally that would be *another person*. Not *another intelligence of some form*. One could even argue "I told the AI some keywords and stuff, so the output is based on what I told it".
I am sure many schools have already formally worked AI into their plagiarism rules, and many more will in the near future. But unless *your* instructions specifically included "AI" or "computer generated" or similar, if I were a student who wanted to push the limits then I might try to see if an AI could take care of my assignments for me.
I would recommend the following:
* Make it clear to this particular student that AI, or any similar system by any other name, is equivalent to traditional plagiarism and not acceptable for any assignments in your course. *I think you already did that.*
* Send a note to the *entire class* stating the same, and update your syllabus for the future.
That still leaves open the problem of what to do here. I would definitely consider the first offense as "forgiven". The second one, based on:
>
> *she had submitted the journal after the meeting in which I'd agreed to let her rewrite her essay*
>
>
>
should get a 0. **after** is the key word here. If it was submitted before your meeting then the student could claim it should be forgiven as well. But "submitted the journal **after** the meeting" gets a 0. That is assuming you made it clear at the meeting that "using AI to complete an assignment is equivalent to copying from a human".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: Here's my advice. Coincidentally, I'm in a similar position right now as last week I had to deal with my own first case of a student trying to surreptitiously use AI during an in-class test.
The OP and I both gave a partial waiver on the first offense. Now we regret it. This is common; when I decide to go lenient, the majority of the time I wind up regretting it later.
Nonetheless, we need to stick to our word on that waiver. This is for multifold reasons: simply honoring our word is important, if the student disputes it we're in a very weak position, etc. Hopefully this serves as a (painful) lesson to the instructor to do better next time; waiving formalized penalties is usually a short-term easy way out, but long-term a bad idea.
The second offense should now be treated as the first and receive a zero without further argument. Any later offense should be failing the course.
Probably someone could try to look at the specific language on the syllabus and try to legalistically argue the second offense is still course-failing, but I don't think that's robust enough to be worth the trouble.
Errors of different types were committed on both sides, and even if the student doesn't take the lesson, we as the instructor should.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: So far everybody assumes that this is cheating. However, you did not say why it is cheating, i.e., what rules were violated.
If you have a definition of cheating encompassing AI assisted writing you have a clear cut case and the consequences have been spelled out. If there is no such policy you are punishing a student who did nothing wrong according to the rules you gave.
I also wouldn't assume that there is a 'clear wrong' when using technology or assistants to improve speed and output.
* Is using Google to find sources for your work cheating? This clearly speeds up your workflow (as opposed of going to the library) and possibly improves the overall result.
* Is using a spellchecker cheating? Your actual spelling might be bad but suddenly you are flawless.
* Is using a grammar/style checker cheating? Your grammar and style might be bad but suddenly you are writing flawless sentences.
* Is asking a friend to comment on your work cheating? They might give you feedback you then incorporate, i.e., you include 'their' work.
* Is hiring a proofreader cheating? They might substantially improve your output. Especially if English is your second language.
I would consider neither of the above cheating and I am afraid that AI assisted writing is simply the next step. I do understand and agree that this defeats the purpose of letting the student write. However, in that case the purpose of the exercise has to be clearly communicated ahead of time, and the rules have to be clear how much and what kind of help is allowed (and why).
Based on your telling the rules weren't clear and the student simply used the same tool twice before being informed she was doing something wrong. Forgetting that another assignment had been submitted already while being chewed out by the lecturer is somewhat understandable though an unfortunate mistake that she could have done without.
**Edit:** I misread the initial question and thought the second assignment was handed in before the meeting. Handing it in after the meeting changes the situation. As the student was aware that she was cheating and blatantly did so anyways, applying the cheating policy to its full effect seems appropriate.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: What you should do is stop playing nice with somebody who evidently has no problem with being dishonest. You already stated that you have a rule:
>
> A student who plagiarizes twice will receive zeros for the assignments and may withdraw or take an F for the course.
>
>
>
All you have to do is apply it - I don't understand what you could possibly perceive as "tricky" here.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: **Warn Her Again**
Based on the information that you have provided in the original question, the timeline could be something like this:
>
> 1. The student submits the first paper.
> 2. The student submits the second paper.
> 3. You discover that the first paper was written using AI; you confront the student; the student asks to resubmit the first paper.
> 4. You discover that the second paper was written using AI.
>
>
>
It is arguable (i.e. likely) that the student *should have known that AI was not an acceptable method for writing their paper*. However, providing this "new" information to the student should not aversely impact previously submitted works.
Take, for example, an incorrect citation in a student's paper. As the instructor, if you provided a correction **prior** to them submitting another paper that happens to use the same citation, then they should be punished for using the incorrect citation again; in this example, they had no excuse for not knowing that they had cited the source incorrectly. However, if you provided a corrected citation **after** they submitted another paper that happens to use the same citation, then they should be shown leniency; in this case, they didn't know that the citation that they had used was incorrect.
The situation that you describe is slightly different from the example above (because, as mentioned previously, the student should have known that AI was not an acceptable method for writing their paper) but the main principle still applies.
**You should warn her again for the second paper. If any other papers are submitted with AI, then you have every right to give her an "F" for the course.**
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_13: There are many answers, but I'd like to re-emphasize one point from comments that may have been lost.
**The student's reason is completely invalid**. During or after the first meeting, she had the chance to admit the same cheating method for the second test, and ask for a redo. By not doing so, she willingly chose to hope you won't catch the second test, and as such committed a second cheating *after* the meeting.
No, she did not make an honest mistake in the second test.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/22
| 1,114
| 4,532
|
<issue_start>username_0: After submitting my grade dispute request to my department (STEM field), my advisor started to become abusive towards me. Originally I speculated that the department may have let him know the fact that I disputed my grades. Not until recently, I became aware that he was actually called upon by the Graduate Program Director to serve on the 3-person committee to review the dispute.
1. My advisor placed me on "probation" in the middle of the semester (four days after I submitted the grade dispute), citing underperformance. I cannot find the mechanism for such "probation" anywhere. There was no prior warning.
2. My advisor also decided to cut my stipend to a level that is far from sufficient to pay my bills (one-third of the original level). My job duties are not reduced. I am a full-time PhD student. My stipend is now below $1k.
3. He has become unreasonable. And his evaluation is crucial to my success. Also, if his change of attitude towards me stemmed from the grade dispute, and he doesn't want to be transparent about it, that basically means I cannot rely on his evaluation to make changes to please him. The action of grade dispute cannot be undone. The advisor type I want to work with is: 1) unhappy and vote against me in the dispute and 2) warn me to not do this anymore, instead of taking a series of cruel actions to punish me.
What should I do?
P.S.: there is definitely a lot of information that is not included. But the main part of the story has been described.<issue_comment>username_1: I won't answer all of your points/questions, but will only attempt the ones that seem to me the most important.
First, most universities will have an ombudsman exactly for this type of issues. These don't have any actual powers to solve problems, but they are deputized to bring people into meetings, tell you about your real options in the context of your institution, etc. Depending on the size of your university, there might be a dean whose job is solving these disputes. In my experience, these people know how vulnerable PhD students are, and do what can be done.
Second, your points about the pettiness of some professors are true. Why would a professor care about a grade dispute? Either the student deserves the credit or not. And it's not like if the A- comes out the professor's salary. And the petty ones are the most likely to go into retaliation mode, which might be what is happening to you.
Having said that, keep in mind that from the professor's side, 95% of the time when a student comes with a story like yours, there's a lot of missing information, misstatements from the student, etc. Too many times I call people (Registrar's, the other professor involved, etc.) to hear back "did the student also tell you he didn't show up for the first half of the semester, didn't he?" And then I ask the student and he/she admits to it, and adds "but it's still unfair, I didn't mean to be absent" or some other lame excuse. So it's not that professors band together. I (and my colleagues) are always looking to do right for other 5%, but please understand that we are applying some Bayesian stats. I'm not saying you are in the 95%, just explaining the skepticism you might see when telling your case.
Now, if you are right, and your advisor is actually retaliating over something this petty, your best (only?) option is to get out of there. However the dispute ends, change advisors, change programs, or change universities. There are many, many examples of people who have done it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It seems like probation *is the warning*.
Unilateral changes to stipends would be absolutely forbidden in the systems I'm familiar with, it's simply not a thing an advisor can do. You will have to check whether that's the case with yours, but if it is permitted I don't see what you can do about it besides opt to leave.
We don't know why your professor is doing these things. You assume it's the grade dispute, but that seems unlikely to me unless it's part of a broader pattern of your behavior. I think you should have a conversation with your advisor. It may be that there is something that can be fixed, but overall to me this sounds like an unsalvageable relationship where your advisor has lost any confidence in you and wants you to leave. Given their importance for your graduate studies, you likely cannot continue without their support.
Your options at that point would be to find another advisor within your program or quit.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/23
| 768
| 3,303
|
<issue_start>username_0: Here is what my potential supervisor said: "You do not need to prepare anything, I have kept all the documents you sent me." I only sent my CV, motivation letter and IELTS report to her.
And this is my first PhD interview ever, what will this kind of interview be like? Answering questions like "why PhD" and describing my research experience without PPT? I don't think I can show my research ability without presenting data and figures, so what should I prepare?
This is my FIRST interview and I really love this project, so any advise about PhD interview is welcome!
Plus: should I read the professor's papers? should I ask her about details of the interview, like the number of people I'll be meeting and their names?<issue_comment>username_1: You should just be ready to have *conversations about research*. Conversations about your research, conversations about theirs, conversations about your research goals, conversations about what you might do with this professor if they become your advisor. There are very few people in the world that share your specific research interests: this is an opportunity to talk to one of them!
You should be ready to discuss your research in a conversation. That doesn't mean you need to memorize numbers or equations but you should know off the top of your head what you've done: what were your hypotheses, what were your methods, what were your results?
Similarly, you don't need to memorize all the papers by the professor you are interviewing with, but you should have some idea of what sorts of things they do so you can ask questions about what you would be doing in their lab.
Remember an interview isn't about the professor "grading" you, you should *both* be using the interview to determine if you'd be a good fit. There are lots of questions here about choosing an advisor - might be helpful to read through some to get ideas of other questions you might ask about mentorship style, frequency of meetings, etc.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: First of all, don't overthink it -- the professor doesn't expect you to prepare anything, so doing any kind of extensive "homework" and reading all the professor's recent papers really isn't necessary! You could just show up and be ready to talk, and that would be fine.
The most important thing -- and you can think of this as a preparation of sorts, if you like -- is that you should be ready explain your background and why the professor's group makes sense for you. I've found that many students try to read papers, but you may not have the background to truly understand those papers, so it's not necessarily helpful. What's more helpful is if you have a good reason for wanting to join a research project in this professor's area X. For example:
* What made you interested in X?
* Did you take a class in X or have prior background in it?
* What makes you excited to work on X?
>
> This is my FIRST interview and I really love this project
>
>
>
This is the sentence in your post that would make me most likely to hire you -- make sure you mention it!
Excitement about a project is not only contagious, it's almost always a great sign in potential students, and often goes much further than any technical preparation.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/23
| 604
| 2,341
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work in the field of Mechanics of Materials and my scientific papers are mostly about modeling. I have some preprints deposited on arxiv but I never submitted a preprint myself. This time, I did the submission myself (category of computational physics). However, after about 2 days, the paper status changed to "on hold". And after about five weeks of being on hold, they informed me that my paper will not be published. Here is the email:
>
> Dear author,
>
>
> Thank you for submitting your work to arXiv. We regret to inform you that
> arXiv’s moderators have determined that your submission will not be accepted
> and made public on[ |http://arxiv.org][arXiv.org|http://arxiv.org].
>
>
> Our moderators have determined that your submission is on a topic not
> covered by arXiv or that the intended audience for your work is not a
> community we currently serve.
>
>
>
Don't know what to do next. Should I resubmit? Are there any other legitimate repositories that I can try?<issue_comment>username_1: If you believe your article is actually on-topic for arXiv (check against the [category taxonomy](https://arxiv.org/category_taxonomy)), you can submit an [appeal](https://info.arxiv.org/help/moderation/appeals.html). Typically when you do so, you'll want to include what specific results are claimed in your work and how those results fit within the category you selected. If you wish for it to be considered for another area, be sure to explain why you feel its results better fit within that area instead.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: arXiv is famously very opaque when it comes to moderation, refusing to reveal their reasons for rejecting or putting papers on hold and rarely accepting appeals. There are many stories of established researchers getting their papers rejected without explanation. Some of them received coverage in [Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19267) or on [blogs run by leading scientists](https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2022/02/04/submission-to-arxiv). You can find many verified accounts of such treatment on Twitter ([just one example](https://twitter.com/chaoyanglu/status/1425992656732123140)).
The moderators of arXiv are seemingly not accountable to anyone and it may be impossible to receive 'due process' from them.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/24
| 949
| 3,898
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an math student pursuing to Master's degree, and I'm taking physics classes as an auditor. (My campus marks them "applied math" and "applied physics", but I don't think that made much difference.)
Though I wanted to take undergrad physics classes, a professor suggested me to take grad physics classes instead. As a result, I ended up taking grad Classical Mechanics, grad Electromagnetism, and grad Quantum Mechanics at once.
And it turns out my math skill really helps! Classical Mechanics utilizes calculus of variations, and it's not a big deal. Electromagnetism utilizes partial differential equations, and it's not a big deal. Quantum Mechanics utilizes linear algebra on Hilbert spaces, and it's not a big deal.
As they seem "easy" so far, I don't see why they set the textbooks as dedicated for grad classes. The grad textbooks are:
* Classical Mechanics by Goldstein, et al.
* Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory by Reitz, et al.
* Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Shankar
For comparison, the undergrad textbooks are:
* Analytic Mechanics by Fowles & Cassiday
* Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths
* Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths
Though I haven't read these undergrad textbooks, they're actually easier, right? Take math textbooks as an analogy. Munkres' Topology is definitely easier than Vick's Homology Theory or Arkowitz's Homotopy Theory.
To prevent an opinion-based question, there is the title question: What factors do distinguish undergrad physics textbooks and grad physics textbooks?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> they seem "easy" so far
>
>
>
These textbooks are relatively easy. Reitz is often used at the undergraduate level (whereas Jackson is the canonical graduate book). Shankar is only epsilon more difficult than Griffiths. I'm guessing your institution does not have one of the most rigorous graduate physics programs.
>
> What factors do distinguish undergrad physics textbooks and grad physics textbooks?
>
>
>
While it's difficult to speak in generalities, my impression is that undergraduate physics courses are mostly about applied math, especially vector calculus, ODEs, and simple PDEs. If you are completely comfortable with the calculus, you'll find the physics to be very straightforward: it's mostly just applying definitions (e.g., electric field), equations/laws (e.g., Maxwell's equations) and simple models (e.g., dipole radiation). In contrast, the graduate textbooks tend to consider more interesting physics, allowing the math to get relatively ugly when necessary (while cherry-picking a bit so that there will be closed-form solutions). Graduate courses can also use more advanced math; for example, Jackson introduces Green functions in chapter 1.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Like with any discipline, grad and undergraduate books will usually be written very differently (not always since some can take you through your masters program, as it turns out), but in my field anyways, it boils down to background knowledge. Assumed background knowledge, specifically. Stats books in undergrad are interchangeable, in my opinion. They mostly cover the same material but in different ways. They usually assume students have little exposure to calculus and serious math.
At the graduate level, it's a pretty big jump. Books in undergrad will not assume you've heard of, for example, Rubin's potential outcomes framework. They'll also assume you've never heard of or used formal math proofs. In grad school (phd program mainly), all this is simply background knowledge that the author assumes you know about, so then you can delve into more challenging topics due to the audience being more familiar with the fundamentals. I'm not a math major, but I've seen enough grad textbooks to get what makes them so different, generally speaking.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/24
| 603
| 2,622
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted an abstract to attend a forthcoming conference in July 2023. The decision on my abstract is still pending. Is it okay to contact the organizers and inquire about the status of the application since I don't know how much time the visa process will take?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> they seem "easy" so far
>
>
>
These textbooks are relatively easy. Reitz is often used at the undergraduate level (whereas Jackson is the canonical graduate book). Shankar is only epsilon more difficult than Griffiths. I'm guessing your institution does not have one of the most rigorous graduate physics programs.
>
> What factors do distinguish undergrad physics textbooks and grad physics textbooks?
>
>
>
While it's difficult to speak in generalities, my impression is that undergraduate physics courses are mostly about applied math, especially vector calculus, ODEs, and simple PDEs. If you are completely comfortable with the calculus, you'll find the physics to be very straightforward: it's mostly just applying definitions (e.g., electric field), equations/laws (e.g., Maxwell's equations) and simple models (e.g., dipole radiation). In contrast, the graduate textbooks tend to consider more interesting physics, allowing the math to get relatively ugly when necessary (while cherry-picking a bit so that there will be closed-form solutions). Graduate courses can also use more advanced math; for example, Jackson introduces Green functions in chapter 1.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Like with any discipline, grad and undergraduate books will usually be written very differently (not always since some can take you through your masters program, as it turns out), but in my field anyways, it boils down to background knowledge. Assumed background knowledge, specifically. Stats books in undergrad are interchangeable, in my opinion. They mostly cover the same material but in different ways. They usually assume students have little exposure to calculus and serious math.
At the graduate level, it's a pretty big jump. Books in undergrad will not assume you've heard of, for example, Rubin's potential outcomes framework. They'll also assume you've never heard of or used formal math proofs. In grad school (phd program mainly), all this is simply background knowledge that the author assumes you know about, so then you can delve into more challenging topics due to the audience being more familiar with the fundamentals. I'm not a math major, but I've seen enough grad textbooks to get what makes them so different, generally speaking.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/24
| 670
| 2,782
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently completed my second master's degree, but unfortunately, I did not perform as well as I had hoped. Despite receiving a distinction in my first degree, I struggled to find motivation in my second master's program (started during COVID) and ended up with an average grade and a mediocre thesis.
While my committee criticized my poor time planning they did not have that strong opinion on my research work , I have to say that I also received little help from my supervisor, which left me feeling unmotivated and ended up being underperforming during the writing process. As a result, I now want to switch back to the field of my previous master thesis and pursue a PhD. However, I am concerned that my mediocre performance will negatively impact my chances of being accepted, and I am not confident that my professor will be willing to provide a strong recommendation letter or any at all.
Is it possible for me to get accepted into a PhD program based on my first degree's dissertation field? I excelled in that area and enjoyed it. I realised that I prefer simulations over experiments.<issue_comment>username_1: You have now a (kind of) strong point: experience in two fields, A and B. It is what you are, so either you cancel two years from your CV, or you make the best out of what you have.
It depends therefore on how you present your experience.
Please keep in mind the difference from the receiving side, in reading
1. "I like A but I hate B"
2. "I enjoyed and I was extremely productive in A, while
in B I could complete the work but it was not completely suited to
me and I had to overcome difficulties in B1-B2-B3".
If I am a practitioner in B looking for someone with expertise and skills in A for a PhD, to test some new path or new research ideas, I would straight reject your cv in the first case, but I would consider you a serious candidate in the second case. All other things being equal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you can still get accepted. What's more, your experience might even help if you frame it the right way. Having done two masters and realizing that your strengths lie in field A and not B tells prospective advisors that you know what you are getting into, and that you are unlikely to have second thoughts once immersed in the PhD.
Make sure not to say things like "I hated field A", because they make you sound like a teenager complaining about a flavor of ice cream. Nothing wrong with saying that you prefer one field over another: everyone does.
Also beware that a PhD can require a lot of sustained, unsupervised work, so if you are looking for a lot of supervision, prospective advisors might see it as requiring lots of hand holding, and that's always seen as a negative.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/24
| 599
| 2,449
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been told that there are 2 different styles of teaching Masters level courses in German university:
1. Normal lecture course - the person gives a certain number of lectures (measured in semester hours) each week and also has an exercise class each week (maybe done by a TA).
2. Seminar style course - the person picks a bunch of book chapters or papers and asks students to pick one of them and present them, so each student presents once during the course of the semester.
Is it accurate and can someone give me more details and their person views and experiences? Isn't there a danger with the second style that if you have say 3 students in the class then each student has much more workload? Is it hard work to do 3-4 semester hours of teaching a week?<issue_comment>username_1: You have now a (kind of) strong point: experience in two fields, A and B. It is what you are, so either you cancel two years from your CV, or you make the best out of what you have.
It depends therefore on how you present your experience.
Please keep in mind the difference from the receiving side, in reading
1. "I like A but I hate B"
2. "I enjoyed and I was extremely productive in A, while
in B I could complete the work but it was not completely suited to
me and I had to overcome difficulties in B1-B2-B3".
If I am a practitioner in B looking for someone with expertise and skills in A for a PhD, to test some new path or new research ideas, I would straight reject your cv in the first case, but I would consider you a serious candidate in the second case. All other things being equal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you can still get accepted. What's more, your experience might even help if you frame it the right way. Having done two masters and realizing that your strengths lie in field A and not B tells prospective advisors that you know what you are getting into, and that you are unlikely to have second thoughts once immersed in the PhD.
Make sure not to say things like "I hated field A", because they make you sound like a teenager complaining about a flavor of ice cream. Nothing wrong with saying that you prefer one field over another: everyone does.
Also beware that a PhD can require a lot of sustained, unsupervised work, so if you are looking for a lot of supervision, prospective advisors might see it as requiring lots of hand holding, and that's always seen as a negative.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/24
| 869
| 3,975
|
<issue_start>username_0: Slightly different from and generalising on interesting discussions [like that one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/121789/94523), I wonder whether the increasingly widespread practice of including *author contribution statements* in many CS journals would also be a viable practice for CS conferences?
I believe this question is a valid one because, while it is usual in some CS sub-domains to put the authors in descending order of their contributions, in other sub-domains of CS it is usual to use alphabetical order. Independent of the preferred order, it may always be reasonable to indicate the corresponding author. However, to increase clarity about the actual roles (e.g., first, senior, consulting, data source, equal, ...) in a rather mixed authorship culture and order-independent, I would consider contribution statements to be relevant for conferences as well. So, again my question: Why would or wouldn't it make sense to adopt the existing practice of journals also for conference papers (whether or not using a quasi-standard like CReDiT or short variants just saying "all authors contributed equally")? Would such statements be a practical means to, for example, increase transparency of contributions and fairness of competitions?
*Some background:* In recent years, the [DORA concept](https://sfdora.org/read/) is increasingly adopted, by hiring committees for instance, with one principle of it being to deviate from entirely bibliometry-oriented assessments of candidates. And it turns out that it is not straightforward to individualise contribution and to qualitatively focus on relevant research output of an individual without more informative contribution statements. Of course, there might be a host of other reasons for or against the adoption of author contribution statements.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think it would be unreasonable. I think that it would make more sense for journals and conferences to adopt something like [the credit statement](https://www.elsevier.com/authors/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement). That way, everyone is clear up front about who did what.
But, I agree with the above: the problem isn't necessarily the statements, it's more about authorship in principle. Just to give a personal example, I think that authorship should be discussed in the beginning.
I'm working on a paper with my mentor. The *original* idea for the paper, though, was my idea, along with my other coworker. When I offered to bring my mentor on the paper, he pretty much told me that me and my other coworker can take the lead, since he's excited to learn from us. So, we had the authorship discussion up front.
It's a small example, but having that discussion up front of who does what, who will be responsible for what, I think it would mitigate lots of the conflict that arises in these situations. I think having formalized statements helps for transparency purposes, but the key thing seems to be authorship itself where people run into problems.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think statements of contributions should be a necessary part of each publication. Author list provides only a slight indication of the contributions, but different reasearch groupd function differently and arange author names with different criteria.
For example in some research groups PHD students formulate their research questions alone, execute the research and only rarely receive feedback fom the advisor mainly during the writing of the paper.
In other groups the advisor provides a well defined question and sometimes also the solution, and the PhD student only has to implement the proposed solution with very little intellectual contribution.
A paper from both of these groups would have the PhD student as first author, and the advisor at last. But only the contribution statement would differentiate the intellectual contribution of the PhD students on each paper.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/24
| 699
| 3,109
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student in mathematics in number theory and would likely give a short contributing (15-minute) talk at a big conference. I have prepared short slides for the talk but plan to go with chalk and talk. I have given slides presentation before but have no experience with chalk and talk. I need your suggestion, provided I am not very good at writing mathematical notations.
My main question is another one. Certainly, there are invited, speakers. But, I was not invited but applied to the conference, and then the organizers accepted my registration with partial financial support (accommodation+food). Many others belong to my category. Now those who are invited will thank the organizers at the beginning of their talks e.g., they will say "I thank the organizers for their invitation".
>
> But since I am not an invited speaker, how should I start the talk? how should I thank the organizers?
>
>
>
Thank you for your suggestion.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think it would be unreasonable. I think that it would make more sense for journals and conferences to adopt something like [the credit statement](https://www.elsevier.com/authors/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement). That way, everyone is clear up front about who did what.
But, I agree with the above: the problem isn't necessarily the statements, it's more about authorship in principle. Just to give a personal example, I think that authorship should be discussed in the beginning.
I'm working on a paper with my mentor. The *original* idea for the paper, though, was my idea, along with my other coworker. When I offered to bring my mentor on the paper, he pretty much told me that me and my other coworker can take the lead, since he's excited to learn from us. So, we had the authorship discussion up front.
It's a small example, but having that discussion up front of who does what, who will be responsible for what, I think it would mitigate lots of the conflict that arises in these situations. I think having formalized statements helps for transparency purposes, but the key thing seems to be authorship itself where people run into problems.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think statements of contributions should be a necessary part of each publication. Author list provides only a slight indication of the contributions, but different reasearch groupd function differently and arange author names with different criteria.
For example in some research groups PHD students formulate their research questions alone, execute the research and only rarely receive feedback fom the advisor mainly during the writing of the paper.
In other groups the advisor provides a well defined question and sometimes also the solution, and the PhD student only has to implement the proposed solution with very little intellectual contribution.
A paper from both of these groups would have the PhD student as first author, and the advisor at last. But only the contribution statement would differentiate the intellectual contribution of the PhD students on each paper.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/24
| 748
| 3,213
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an editor for a math journal. When I select and invite a reviewer to referee a paper the journal's management software automatically writes and sends an email invitation to that reviewer.
For a couple of recent papers where I was having trouble getting reviewers to accept an invitation I started sending a manually written email (from my university email address) to the potential reviewer asking them to consider reviewing the paper,
My response and acceptance rates are much higher when I do this, which is great, but I worry if I am being overly pushy this way, or if emailing reviewers directly is outside the norm. When I get requests to review papers myself, I almost never get a manually-written email from the editor, just the auto-generated one.
So is it OK to send a manually written email to potential reviewers, when the journal already sends them an autogenerated email invitation? This manually written email would be in addition to the autogenerated one.<issue_comment>username_1: I wouldn't send both up front - that seems a bit spammy.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me for an editor to reach out to potential reviewers however they communicate with other humans: email, in the pub, at a conference.
If you're getting a better response with your personal communications, I'd recommend reaching out that way first, and if someone shows interest, that's when you can follow up with the autogenerated email.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Long time editor and editor-in-chief here:
I would say putting on a human touch is a perfectly legitimate approach and, as you are finding out, is improving your response rates. So go with it.
In the system we use the journal where I'm the EiC, I get to see the auto-generated email before I click "send". I often put a personal preface at the top. This way, the recipient gets only one email, but it has a personal element to it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Don't send two emails. It's somewhat spammy, and even where it isn't, it's a not-very-productive use of your time. If you have no choice then yeah (e.g. in one of the editorial management systems I've used, if you register a new reviewer, the system sends a mandatory email to tell them that they've been registered), but don't do it if you don't have to.
Instead, customize the reviewer invitation that is actually sent. The editorial management system should let you do this. You probably don't have to change much, the template is there for a reason, but you can add a personal message at the top that doesn't even have to make structural sense.
Here's an example of a recent invitation I sent that got an enthusiastic response from the reviewer. The only thing I added was the text in brackets at the top; the rest of the email is the template.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cQufz.png)
You could write all sorts of things as well, e.g. some kind of personal greeting if you know the reviewer personally, or reassure the reviewer that you are not pressuring them to review, so they should feel free to decline if they're currently busy, etc.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/24
| 983
| 4,291
|
<issue_start>username_0: I received an invitation from a Prof. in an highly ranked University to publish a chapter in a book (Computer Science). The book publisher is a well known publisher. As far as I know, the chapter will be peer reviewed. The topic is in my research field and considered state of the art topic. The time schedule is tight (one month). I would like to know if such a publication is considered a valuable publication and has equivalent value to publishing a paper in journal?<issue_comment>username_1: I would say yes, especially if the chapter provides a mini review with an overview on the topic, plus some new contribution.
And if the professor who is editing the book is well known, it means that they will promote the book, and thus the contribution will have high visibility.
Moreover since their name will be on the book I would expect that the contributions will have higher chances to get cited.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: They are not equivalent, and the relative value depends. That's the distinction between primary and secondary literature. Many classic 'papers' in my field are not papers but book chapters with novel arguments (not data, obviously, those would be in a paper.) Both are valuable and having both in the CV is better than having only one of the two. If I were in the middle of finishing a research paper and a book chapter offer with a tight deadline came along, I would pass. But you don't mention having to choose one over the other, so it's to your advantage to accept.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: My sinister view is that it benefits the professor more than the authors of each chapter. The professor will promote his/her name, and harp about having written a 'whole' book by him/herself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Evaluating the value of a book chapter (for purposes such as tenure review, salary increases, promotion, hiring, etc.) can be more difficult than evaluating a conference or journal article, as it is not immediately clear how much peer evaluation was done.
On the plus side, you have an invitation by a recognized person in the field. This is like an invited article in a journal, which in Computer Science adds value. On the negative side, without your chapter, the book might be incomplete, so they can at worst prod you to better the chapter if you did a lousy job. (Not that you would ever do that.)
There is also a lot of predatory publishing going on with book-chapter invitations and some few good people have become stooges in a pay-to-publish scam. Since your potential editor has a renown, that is not the case here and an evaluator would hopefully know that. Then of course there are conference articles that are published as chapters in a book such as Springer Lecture Notes. This means that an evaluator has to look closely at the editor and the publisher.
The impact measured in citations is a different category. A chapter in a book might be less visible, as books authored by many people tend to lack coherence (in Computer Science).
So, summing up, a book chapter under these circumstances would not equal a class A publication, but might be better than a class C conference publication depending on the status of the editor. If you can do a good job in a month, I would go for it. You might be gaining the editor as a future letter writer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Book chapters comes in different shades.
You have the ones that are 'technically' conference proceedings (CCIS, AICT, LNCS ...).
You also have the reviewed and collated like the one OP described.
Yet, there're the ones that are '*mere*' collation.
I'll leave out the technical/subject books.
The ***weight*** ascribed/attached to books chapters varies at
* country level for funding or research impact
* discipline level where order and *perception* play a part
* university level for promotion or funding or ranking.
There are other nuances beyond the three examples.
OP scenario might be *considered a valuable publication*, given the description.
[**Edit**]
*Prof. in an highly ranked University* might also go alongside Prof. is an highly influential, or highly regarded in CS (*subfield*) conferences, or highly rank in CS (*subfield*)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/24
| 976
| 4,384
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just finished my PhD and I have just started my PostDoc position in another university.
I have 2 remaining publications resulting from my PhD thesis that need to get published, that I have written without my PhD advisor (our relationship was really poor and they were trying to stop me from graduating).
The main affiliation for these publications is the uni where I conducted my PhD, but I can also add the new uni. I am now wondering which department is supposed to cover the publication fees for these two papers, and whether it would be considered acceptable to ask my new PostDoc advisor for money for the papers.
I plan (if everythings runs smoothly) to publish the papers in journals with whom both unis have university agreements, so the money will not come out directly from the new PIs pocket, but still I would assume there may be a bound how much they can publish from their lab.
How do people who move positions usually tackle this?<issue_comment>username_1: This is from a mathematics perspective, but I'd just recommend asking senior people who have some investment in your success and also may have money by descending order of how good your relationship is with them.
When I went MSc -> PhD, the fees for a (conference) paper mostly based on my MSc thesis were picked up by the coauthor who was from neither my MSc or PhD institutions. These things are costs of doing business. They should hopefully be small enough that *somebody* with money in your immediate orbit cares enough to cover them. Worst case scenario, if genuinely nobody will cover the fees, reach out to the potential publishers and explain your situation as an early-career researcher.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is something you have to negotiate. The possible funders are your original institution, your advisor (via a grant, perhaps), your new institution, and the PI, if any, at the new place. All or none might be willing to pay publication fees.
If you are moving then it is best to talk about this as part of a startup fund with the new institution. If they really want you then they will want to absorb such things.
Many institutions also pay such fees as a matter of course for the faculty.
As [Anonymous M](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/195589/75368) suggests, a co-author might have funding.
The final "fund" is your pocket.
But there are no general rules about such things. It is up to you to negotiate it - or beg.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If the unis have publishing agreements with the journals, *look up what they say*. These agreements typically do not come with limits (in the same way old style library journal subscriptions did not come with a limit on the articles that could be accessed). Instead they cover the publishing cost if certain conditions are met. The agreements I have encountered are all based off the affiliation of the corresponding author. If the corresponding author is affiliated to the (a) uni with a publishing agreement, the publishing fees are covered. However, this might very well be different with other agreements and other journals.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: In my experience this is normally done based on your affiliation at time of acceptance, which is also the affiliation that appears on the published version. Universities are generally happy for this to go through their transformative agreement without worrying about where the research was done - they want you to publish papers while affiliated to them, they want these papers to be open access, and they are willing to pay for that. I have never heard of there being a limit on how many papers you can publish.
Some journals may have requirements that the affiliation matches where the research was done, but I would be less confident that an institution that no longer employs me would be willing to cover this. However, if there were nontrivial revisions required I think you could genuinely put both affiliations even in this case.
I have had some papers accepted where the research was done at a previous institution, a transformative agreement applied and I was corresponding author. In most cases this was done through the new institution's agreement. The exception was a case where the revision happened at the old institution but was accepted shortly after the move.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/24
| 744
| 3,145
|
<issue_start>username_0: One supervisor of a university accepted me as a student and ensured me funding. I accepted this offer.
Is it ok to still contact and seek funding from supervisors of other universities?<issue_comment>username_1: If you have accepted an offer then you should honor it, but until you do you are free to talk to others.
Even after accepting, if you get a better offer it is good to discuss the earlier one with the original person to back out. And "better" can be hard to analyze as it depends on your values. It isn't just money.
Ethically, however, you should honor any agreements you make.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you accepted the offer, you are bound by it. There are several risks in continuing to talk with other potential advisors:
1. You don't know if the professor with whom you have an agreement made
a difficult decision between you and another applicant that was
almost as qualified as you. Say you get a better offer and come back
to negotiate better terms (e.g. you want an RA instead of TA first
semester, etc.), the professor might just give your spot to the
other candidate. I know I would. If the second offer fails to materialize, you'll be left holding an empty bag.
2. It sets a really bad tone to start a 4 to 5-year professional
relationship with your advisor by breaking your word, ie accepting
an offer when you are still shopping around.
None of this is to say that you can't or shouldn't negotiate terms, or try to get in to the best program you can. It's that the time to negotiate is *before* you accept the offer.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the answers above that the the time to shop around and/or negotiate is before you accept an offer.
Ask yourself WHY you are (or would consider) still contacting other places (which sounds like the start of a search, not a concrete offer that is pending)? Do you have any doubts about the position you accepted? If so, talk to the supervisor whose offer you accepted and discuss your doubts about their specific offer.
If you are searching just to see what else is out there and you consider jumping ship once something better comes along, that will not reflect well on you - as stated by other answers.
By the way, it's not clear whether you are talking about a PhD or a different position. If it's a PhD, then it is important that you are all in from the start. Both you and your future supervisor will put in a lot of time (multiple years of both your lives), effort and energy (and in the case of your supervisor: funding) into your training and research, so this will only work if both parties are committed.
If we're talking about an MSc or BSc internship then the dual commitment still holds, but it will have less of an impact on your life and future career as we're talking about months - so ideally you would just stick to the agreement and take the position - but only if you are sure that you will give it your 100%. If not, then my advice would be to still decline the offer - but do so quickly and gracefully before you start as others may take your place in this person's lab.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/25
| 1,037
| 4,334
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the thing you look for (and reject when not found) in a PhD-holder's CV/Resume when he applies for a PostDoc position?<issue_comment>username_1: You need to add a lot more information about the field... But generally speaking you need to match all the "essential criteria" of the job advert and possibly some of the "desirable criteria" in order to be competitive amongst applicants.
Shortlisting requires the candidate to fit the advertised criteria via a formal HR process in most places. If shortlisted you also need to present well at interview.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Regarding the majority of short postdoc positions (less than 2.5 years), often the Postdoc obtaining it will leave sooner because of another appointment or the likes.
They are expensive, kind of unreliable (and rightly so) but they can be very effective in fixing urgent issues/needs in both teaching and research aspects.
So the criteria is "the closer the formal fit of the candidate I am looking for to the position I described in the opening, the better".
Grants, projects get funded, contacts with the industry: extremely nice to have.
Publication track, awards, all the other rational and objective metrics (i.e. crap like H-index, total count of citations, number of years at MIT, etcetc): yeah, nice to have, but not necessary and often the way they are presented they meta-tell something about the candidate.
What really help, in case of a cynical supervisor, is if the postdoc has a decent publication under preparation that fits the supervisor interest. The cynical supervisor will smell the option of being co-author and will be quite proactive.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> What is the thing you look for (and reject when not found) in a PhD-holder's CV/Resume when he applies for a PostDoc position?
>
>
>
First, I look their ability to complete the project I have funding for their position.
This includes, hopefully obvious things, like their technical skills (e.g., methodologies, programming skills, writing), but also their ability to learn.
Almost no PhDs would have a match for my positions, so I know I will need to train them, which is actually a fair trade because a postdoc is a transactional relationship.
The postdoc learns new skills while getting paid a decent wage (I work for a government center, so in 2023, the minimum at my center is about $70,000 with full benefits or ~$85,000 for some contractor positions) and the postdoc solves my problem.
Their study system for their PhD is not as important as their ability to learn new systems.
I check these skills by looking at their CV, coursework, and checking with references.
Second, I look for soft skills.
Their ability to communicate and work with a team.
This includes presenting, but also "playing well with others".
The last thing I need or want is somebody who destroys relationships that have taken years to build.
Some skills appear on CVs such as presentations, but also outreach events.
For example, have you taught elementary kids about sciences on Saturdays in grad school?
Or, do you present to local civic groups?
Were you a schoolteacher before going to grad school?
Reference checks help as well for this point.
Lastly, the interview helps with somebody's ability to communicate and provides some insight into their personality and ability to work well with others.
Third, I look for the ability to ask new questions.
I give my postdocs the chance to develop their own side project.
This comes up via reference checks and the interview.
As one of the closing questions, I ask something like *given what we've talked about today, what is a question you might ask as your own research question?*
I don't care what the candidate specifically says, but I want to see a decent idea and passion to learn (I know their actual side project will change once they learn more).
Finally, I would make a small note of their writing skills in their cover letter and CV.
Small typos are okay, but glaring problems here can raise red flags.
For example, with your question, I would note you use antiquated English and assume the male pronoun ("he") for all applicants with your question.
Not a deal breaker, but this would raise a small red flag that I would look into more.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/04/25
| 811
| 3,338
|
<issue_start>username_0: Per title. There's a war going on in Ukraine, which presumably makes it hard to do research, especially if one is suffering from constant blackouts. If Ukrainian researchers are currently not able to review, it's possible they will assume that it is something I ought to know, and be offended as a result. On the other hand, if I assume that Ukrainian researchers are currently not able to review, then I am making the decision for them, which is also not be ideal. Are Ukrainian researchers currently able to do peer review?
Bonus question: what if the paper in question is written by Russian authors?<issue_comment>username_1: *Yes, no, maybe.*
The situation is extremely varied, and from a few contacts I know of at least two situations:
1. Some researchers are currently hosted in various European institutions as refugees. They might not be reachable at their former emails.
2. Some researchers are still working in Ukraine, but their institutions may be severely damaged.
Indeed there is also the possibility that a significant number of researchers might be fighting or have been killed.
I see no reason to universally assume that a Ukrainian researcher cannot review a paper, and I'd certainly send the invitation. Expect, though, that they might not be able to reply.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I wouldn't bother them with any trivial stuff for which you can easily find a reviewer elsewhere at this point, but if something really requires high level of expertise and you know a really good specialist in Ukraine, I see nothing unethical about *asking* (but asking is not a synonym of *insisting*!) if you manage to establish a contact, which, as Massimo noted, may now be a bit more difficult than usual.
In general, my opinion is that even in the peace time, people in difficult situations are uplifted if someone trusts them with good interesting work and get irritated if someone asks them to review patented junk the editors were too lazy/busy to reject themselves. So just be more selective than before the war.
As to "bonus question", play it by ear. There is no obvious answer for that. When my Ukrainian friends talk about "Russians", I sometimes make a point of reminding them that I *am* one of those (nevermind that I'm on the side of Ukraine in this war and that I have an American citizenship for over 15 years by now). That, nevertheless, creates no offense on either side, and we discuss freely many things way more "sensitive" than pure math. When the Ukrainian Rada recently made a move to prohibit citations of Russian authors in Ukrainian papers, many of them signed a letter of protest and called such move "idiotic". There are a lot of subtleties here beyond the "us" versus "them" division by the nationality alone.
Again, exercise caution and common sense but, IMHO, the only worldwide guild that should finally file for bankruptcy and be disbanded as the result of the recent events is that of politicians. Mathematicians should try to stay together as a guild (though many individual relations may be rather strained now). I don't know how to facilitate that and it is obviously impossible to do it by force or through logical persuasion alone, but some gentle nudges here and there may go at least some way.
Just my two cents...
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/04/25
| 1,019
| 4,289
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first year PhD student. I never have any record of publication or conference paper before.
In my PhD, I worked as a coauthor for the post doctoral fellow's paper. My post doc work 24x7 sundays and Saturdays holidays but I am not like that. One sunday she asked to come for work, me and another phd student clearly refused it. After that she didn't ask us anything to do for the research. After the experiment work finished, she did all the analysis Without our knowledge. Then, supervisor and postdoc are presenting it in various conferences. For one conference, a day before the conference @5PM, they send me a presentation out of nowhere and they are going to present where my name was there but I am completely unaware of this and I didn't even reply to that email yet they presented it.
Also prof and postdoc are now presenting it in international conference but I was never informed about it. This time I never knew whether my name was there or not ? My fellow PhD student who is also another coauthor informed me about this. He was also mad at this time, because he asked them for dates to conduct his research but they told him that they are presenting that postdoc work in a conference on that dates So they are unavailable. We never knew about abstract submission and all the process happened.
Now, they are planning to submit the manuscript for a journal and informed us to approve the consent. I don't know much about academic conducts and rules. Can my collaborators present this work in conferences without my knowledge and consent?<issue_comment>username_1: *Yes, no, maybe.*
The situation is extremely varied, and from a few contacts I know of at least two situations:
1. Some researchers are currently hosted in various European institutions as refugees. They might not be reachable at their former emails.
2. Some researchers are still working in Ukraine, but their institutions may be severely damaged.
Indeed there is also the possibility that a significant number of researchers might be fighting or have been killed.
I see no reason to universally assume that a Ukrainian researcher cannot review a paper, and I'd certainly send the invitation. Expect, though, that they might not be able to reply.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I wouldn't bother them with any trivial stuff for which you can easily find a reviewer elsewhere at this point, but if something really requires high level of expertise and you know a really good specialist in Ukraine, I see nothing unethical about *asking* (but asking is not a synonym of *insisting*!) if you manage to establish a contact, which, as Massimo noted, may now be a bit more difficult than usual.
In general, my opinion is that even in the peace time, people in difficult situations are uplifted if someone trusts them with good interesting work and get irritated if someone asks them to review patented junk the editors were too lazy/busy to reject themselves. So just be more selective than before the war.
As to "bonus question", play it by ear. There is no obvious answer for that. When my Ukrainian friends talk about "Russians", I sometimes make a point of reminding them that I *am* one of those (nevermind that I'm on the side of Ukraine in this war and that I have an American citizenship for over 15 years by now). That, nevertheless, creates no offense on either side, and we discuss freely many things way more "sensitive" than pure math. When the Ukrainian Rada recently made a move to prohibit citations of Russian authors in Ukrainian papers, many of them signed a letter of protest and called such move "idiotic". There are a lot of subtleties here beyond the "us" versus "them" division by the nationality alone.
Again, exercise caution and common sense but, IMHO, the only worldwide guild that should finally file for bankruptcy and be disbanded as the result of the recent events is that of politicians. Mathematicians should try to stay together as a guild (though many individual relations may be rather strained now). I don't know how to facilitate that and it is obviously impossible to do it by force or through logical persuasion alone, but some gentle nudges here and there may go at least some way.
Just my two cents...
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/04/25
| 1,845
| 7,627
|
<issue_start>username_0: So this seems quite common, for example [this job](https://jobs.acm.org/jobs/view/tenured-tenure-track-faculty-electrical-and-computer-engineering/68932235/?utm_term=11&utm_medium=email&utm_source=daily-alert&utm_campaign=job-alert-email-23610&utm_content=position-title) was first advertised late in 2022, for start in summer 2023, and is now readvertised with the "review of applications will begin on 15th February 2023" phrase still there.
My guess, most likely this is now readvertised so the university can proceed with applying for an H1 for the preferred applicant. So someone applying for this position may be:
1. wasting their time, especially if they don't have a green card;
2. have a chance if they are outstanding (unsure how true that is) compared to the preferred candidate;
3. with small likelihood the preferred candidate declined and this is a genuine re-advertisement.
Are any other scenarios likely? Or is it in fact common that positions cannot be filled and they genuinely look for a new candidate?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally a position is re-posted when it is not filled.
Reasons to not fill a job after a previous search would include not wanting to make an offer to any of the applicants in the first round, or making an offer to someone who didn't accept or accepted and later changed their plans, such that the job is still open.
Also possible that it's a separate position, and the previous one was filled, even if it's perfectly copied from a previous one. Most of the text is boilerplate and the specific requirements are quite vague and speak to strategic goals rather than a specific opening.
Ultimately, there's not really much value in speculating. Your H1B explanation doesn't make much sense to me, reposting a job is not part of the H1B process.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: From the perspective of the search committee, it's called a *failed search*, and the ad is re-posted. It seems that you are trying to figure out if this is a true search, ie really open to outside candidates, and not just a pro-forma search where the committee is just going through the motions before hiring a candidate they had in mind from the beginning.
The good news is that, in my experience, pro-forma searches for faculty positions are very uncommon. This is not to say that pro-forma searches don't happen in academia. In fact, they happen a lot, usually as a result of a university policy requiring that all searches be publicly posted and at least 3 candidates interviewed, etc. But this is more common for say, technician positions in which a lab already has a part-time tech and the PI wants to make him/her full-time. It's a waste of time for everyone involved, especially the candidates who take the time to write applications, be interviewed, etc.
But again, this is rare for faculty positions. There's just too much at stake. It is even illegal in some public universities to give preferences to one candidate based on anything but what is on the application.
I know it's surprising for job seekers to hear this, especially with news of 400-500 candidates applying to a single position, but many searches fail because there are no good candidates, and the committee wants to give it another year. Sometimes the job is offered to a candidate, the candidate holds off the decision for months, then declines, and the committee realizes that they need to restart the process from scratch. I worked at a university with the idiotic rule that if the first candidate did not accept the offer, the committee must re-do the search, even if the candidate in the second spot was 99% of candidate 1. Because those #1 candidates usually had offers from other places, that meant searches that lasted years.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The theory that (a) there's a preferred candidate, (b) the preferred candidate needs an H1B visa, and (c) the re-advertising allows the H1B visa to be obtained, seems overwhelming unlikely. None of those points (a-c) seem likely, and point (c) doesn't seem logical at all. I've heard more negative stories of the need for academic candidates to get an H1B than positive.
In addition to other answers, an actual practical reason why this might occur is -- The higher institution has permitted hires, then retracted it, then re-allowed it, then put a freeze on it, then re-permitted it, etc.
For example, this has happened in my department. I think we've been trying to fill a particular CS position for about 5 years at this point. Frustratingly, the overall hiring process cycle (with many steps mandated by the higher university) takes longer than the institution's economic cycle. So we've been through multiple waves of budget cuts, financial retractions, expansions, COVID, etc., and it seems that we can't get the task done before the next hiring freeze is put in place.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It could genuinely just be on offer still, there's a professorship at my university that needed 3 rounds of advertising to fill, because the chosen candidates cancelled after they had accepted the offer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In the context of that particular field—computer science and engineering—it is likely that simply no qualified applicants were found, or the ones that were found got better offers elsewhere. This is very common in computing right now—it is a very in-demand field and finding high quality candidates who could succeed in getting tenure at Clemson, an R1 university, is just difficult. There are simply not that many high-caliber candidates.
Note that the position is in a department of computer engineering, but the qualifications (emphasis on AI/ML) clearly are looking for computer science.
The [Taulbee Survey](https://cra.org/resources/taulbee-survey/) is put out by the Computing Research Association, and is the gold-standard industry publication about computing in academia. Among many other things, they report on reasons for unsuccessful faculty searches. If you look at Table F2 and F2a on pages 33–34 of the current survey, you will find number of successful searches and reasons why searches failed.
First, for US Public universities, tenure-track searches failed 25% of the time. Of those searches that failed, 67% failed because someone couldn't be gotten. Either because no qualified applicants were found (14%), or applicants accepted a better offer somewhere else (53%).
To your specific question—are any of these positions being listed with no real intention to fill them, the survey lists as only 5%—"Technically vacant, not filled for admin reasons."
I might also speculate—and I caution that this is wild speculation—that Clemson in particular might have trouble hiring in CS due to their research trajectory. Clemson moved from R2 to R1 status in 2015, which means that they will probably have a difficult hiring climate in their department. They are probably seeking to hire top-quality R1 research candidates, but they probably don't have as many mature CS researchers, CS research opportunities, and CS research support as other, more mature R1 programs. This would make it very difficult for them to compete for those top candidates. Essentially, they're in the process of moving from being a big fish in the R2 pond, to being a small fish in the R1 pond. As someone in a CS department at a university in a similar place, I can say that it has been incredibly difficult to hire, and our ability hire has not kept pace with the growth in our teaching programs, to say nothing of our university's research ambitions.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/25
| 3,377
| 13,601
|
<issue_start>username_0: I teach a course where attendance is required. The syllabus says "Every unexcused absence will result in a deduction of one point from the attendance grade". The total number of points for attendance is 3. Thus if a student has perfect attendance, they will receive 3/3 for the attendance grade, if a student has two unexcused absences, their attendance grade will be 1/3, etc. The school rule also implied that any student who has four or more unexcused absences should drop this course. So when the syllabus policy was made, the case where a student has four or more absences was not considered.
There is a student who has 6 unexcused absences. By right he should drop this course but for whatever reason he has persuaded the dean to allow him to remain in this course. In this case, should I give him -3/3 for his attendance grade based on the syllabus policy "Every unexcused absence will result in a deduction of one point". Or should I give him 0/3? I think this student deserves a lower attendance grade than someone with three unexcused absences, who will receive 0/3.
Canvas allows me to technically enter a negative grade, but I am not sure if it will be a good idea. What are some possible consequences of entering a negative grade?
Clarifications:
* There are 100 total points in the class, so an otherwise-perfect student with a 0/3 on attendance would receive 97% (and -3/3 would be 94%).
* The student has a remarkably good attitude despite the absences (this may have affected the dean's thinking).<issue_comment>username_1: I'd recommend that you not lower the grade below zero (0). This seems to represent "lost all points for this category", which seems roughly appropriate.
Moreover, I think in cases that are in a gray zone like this, you're better off for multiple reasons erring on the side of being charitable towards the student. The fact that you're asking here indicates there's at least some vagueness to the policy. It could result in a student dispute that will be a drag on your time. You've already got a dean involved who's signaled they're willing to go to bat for the student. Etc. Probably others can explicate other reasons, as well.
Even though I'm considered among the strictest graders at my institution/department, nevertheless, in a case like this I think you're better off not making up a novel never-before-seen grade.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: In my opinion, if you want to give negative points, you should start with them at 0/3 and inform them that they will start getting negative points for more absences. The student may have incurred these additional absences without a full understanding of the consequences for this happening (I don’t think it’s unreasonable to incorrectly interpret your policy (you haven’t made up your mind on your own policy here either!)).
You may want to also ask the dean if the student has an executive functioning disability. Perhaps that was a factor in their decision and could inform your decision too.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Your student is being graded on a lot more than just attendance, so I assume the purpose of the attendance grade here is primarily to encourage attendance, rather than that attendance is absolutely necessary for the content of the course (for example a course based primarily on discussion between students is basically meaningless without attendance).
Setting their attendance grade to zero sounds sufficient to me. If they're able to do well on the other 97% without attending classes, they've found some other way to learn the course material. If not, well, they're already being penalized for the lack of attendance in other ways.
I'd also keep in mind that a student missing a lot of sessions may be dealing with issues that you are not privy to (maybe the dean is, maybe not), involving their own health or someone else's health, needing to watch/assist a child or elder or person with a disability, or needing to make other tough choices between your class and something else. I don't think it's necessarily up to you to decide whether their reasons are 'good enough' and certainly not your right to know what they are, but if they're making other efforts towards the course besides being physically present at a certain time that should count for something, and you kind of just have to assume they've weighed the consequences they know about and understand and try not to create new ones that would be unexpected.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> There is a student who has 6 unexcused absences. By right he should drop this course but for whatever reason he has persuaded the dean to allow him to remain in this course.
>
>
>
This is the Dean's problem, not yours. You need to refer this to the Dean for them to make a policy decision or clarification of this case.
The Dean may be privy to information related to the absences which you are not, but whatever the case, it's their job to clarify the problem.
I think in the absence of guidance to the contrary I would regard the intent to have excused the absences and hence no further punishment is required. I would suggest you put this to the Dean when asking for clarification as your default position.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: When you say, "the total number of points for attendance is 3", it is absolutely not the same thing as, "I will deduct a point for every day you miss." In the latter case, there is not reason to specify any number. Taking more points is not fair to students because it does not follow your syllabus. Perhaps a bit capricious too, and it seems like you are singling out one student with a *special* policy.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Getting into "negative points" is a super weird territory for grading purposes. I've never even heard of that before. Even if the math works, what does it mean philosophically? That you've....... done worse, than you could possibly do? I don't understand. I also agree with sentiments expressed in the comments: grades at the end of the day are warranted with strength/merit, not attendance. If someone can make a 97 in the course or a 95 in the course and miss 4 days, then I do not see why it is bad for them to do so. I know, I know, different schools have their own policies, but if attendance is the biggest issue we can find with the student, then I look at that as just fine. Note, that the opposite is true as well: if you miss 4 days, and then do not do well on the material covered on those 4 days, then that's the student's fault, not yours. Part of academia is being treated like an adult in the sense that people *aren't* going to hold your hand and look after you, in many instances. This is one of those instances.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: First, as I've stated elsewhere, [your students are adults](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154916/is-the-death-of-a-girlfriends-father-a-reasonable-excuse-for-a-student-to-miss/154925#154925), and for that reason, the whole idea of "excused" versus "unexcused" absences, and grading based on attendance, is generally a bad one in the context of higher education. So I'd say you should not deduct any points for absences, but if you're going to deduct points, at least deduct as few points as possible. Giving 0/3 points for attendance instead of -3/3 would be more in keeping with this general philosophy.
Second, I think your "negative points" framing isn't actually the most correct way to look at the situation. It sounds like in your grading policy you've allotted 97 out of 100 grade points to "performance", and 3 points out of 100 to "attendance". Your idea of giving "negative points" in the attendance component is really a suggestion to have someone's lack of attendance eat into their performance-related grade points. That is effectively a penalty rather than a grade. If someone's performance grade was 97/97, they deserve to get those 97 points. You've basically declared that demonstrating correct knowledge of the course material will result in those points being awarded, but now you're proposing to retroactively change that and have a lack of attendance negatively affect the performance component of the grade. That's not logical, and does not seem like an appropriate thing to do. Students deserve to have clear goalposts to aim for that are not moved after the fact. And as @DanielR.Collins says in his excellent answer, leaning towards a charitable interpretation of your policies in cases of ambiguity is generally a good idea.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_8: >
> "Every unexcused absence will result in a deduction of one point from
> the attendance grade"
>
>
>
At 0 points, they have no attendance points left to be deducted. If you deduct points into the negative, you are taking points away from other categories.
Since you do not know the circumstances of the absences and don't need to (the dean has vouched for the student), I don't think you need to worry about minus points.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Your syllabus says attendance is worth 3 points, and the student read that and determined, for whatever reason, "I don't need those 3 points".
Now you're talking about changing the rules, and taking points away from the student in other areas (whether you think of assigning negative points this way or not, this is what you'd effectively be doing).
You should clearly stick to the syllabus, and assign the student a 0 for attendance. If you don't like that outcome, you can change the syllabus the next time you teach the class.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: No, not with the syllabus as currently written. You said "Every unexcused absence will result in a deduction of one point from the **attendance grade**" (which is assumed by default to be zero or positive), not the overall grade.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: I think that if you give negative points then the total overall possible grade would be the positive opposite of the negative. For example, if you deduct three more points for the other absences then the highest possible grade should be 103. It doesn’t seem fair that someone with perfect attendance only earn 3 points with no chance to gain more, and someone with 6 absences can lose points outside of the allotted attendance grade. As that is not how the class’s grading system is structured, I don’t think it’s logical to go below 0/3.
Since the dean has allowed them to remain in the class, I’d follow that lead and only deduct the three points allowed for attendance.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_12: What do you hope to achieve by negative points?
If attendance can go negative then essentially your attendance grade could be rescored as a positive number but with attendance taking a larger percentage of the grade.
So for example: saying attendance is 10% of the grade and you scored a -10% on it and the other 90% of your grade was scored 85% gives you a final grade of (-10%) \* 0.1 + (85%)\*0.9 = 75.5% (a C+)
You can alternatively look at this as saying attendance is 11.5% of your grade and you scored a 0%. The other 88.5% of your grade was scored 85% giving you a final grade of
(0%)\*0.115 + (85%)\*0.885 = 75.5225% (a C+)
(for those that want the exact threshold to make them match is 151/170)
I hope you see the point. Negative grades are basically just a way to mislead what the true grading is. Any negative grading scheme can be rescored as a positively graded scheme with different weights (namely increasing the weights wherever the scheme was negative) assuming you have a maximum number of losable points for a particular weight.
Also what is the purpose of the grade? It's a measure of competency (hopefully). So what does it mean to be below 0% competent at something?
Where Negatives Make Sense:
---------------------------
I think in the medical field you can score someone on "did they improve the condition, did they do nothing but pass it along to the right parties, did they actively make the problem worse"
If I had a class on surgery that was hands-on I could see a justified negative grading scheme "-15% student's performance would result in severe complications, not only did they fail the task but the way they performed it caused a rupture to the lung as well"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_13: For the sake of offering a contrary view from what I'm reading in the other answers, I will support the idea of negative points in general.
Not every instructor agrees with the importance of classroom attendance. (There would certainly be a difference between the U.S. and Europe on this question.) I don't want to get into that, but certainly in an American context it's not unusual to require attendance and participation.
I don't believe that just because participation is expected, it therefore needs to be a large fraction of the grade. That flattens out the grades and makes it hard to differentiate students.
I have used negative points in homework grading. (Again there will be different ideas about this, but for me, doing the homework is a fundamental.) So I would give people negative points if they didn't do it, to reflect the importance of the work to the course. That incentivizes students to do the work, without requiring me to have a large fraction of the final grade devoted to homework.
In your particular case, since you didn't indicate that negative points are a possibility in your syllabus, I don't think it's an appropriate thing to do. But you could change your syllabus in the future.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/04/25
| 2,200
| 8,469
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my last semester of college, I was going through many difficulties. I could get into detail about everything I was experiencing and feeling during this stressful time but it would be too long.
Anyways, I had an important capstone project, including other assignments piled on top. It was during the last few weeks of school that, once it was time to turn things in, I lied about the project implementation and I paid to get the final project paper and a few of my other assignments done. This was the *only* time I’ve ever thought to do this. I edited/changed the work, I didn’t 100% copy/paste during this period but I feel very terrible that I resorted to this and I want to confess and return my degree.
I had thoughts about dropping out before but felt this wasn’t a choice because of my family. My mind went to a dark place so I felt if I failed I couldn’t do another semester especially since my family was expecting me to graduate. I don’t even plan to pursue anything with the degree, I felt pressured from my family and didn’t stop to think what I truly wanted so now I’ve just been stuck about what I did last year and I don’t know how to forgive myself or what God would want me to do. Any kind advice would help, please.<issue_comment>username_1: Your post seems to suggest that you have learned from your mistake. Given that, I'd suggest that you let the past be the past and move on, hopefully to better acts in the future.
Returning the degree (if it would even be accepted) won't do anyone any good, provided that you behave ethically going forward.
We all fail in some ways at some point in our lives. Learn from the mistakes and don't repeat bad behaviors.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know if this is possible in your case, but I've re-taken classes before. It wouldn't be "easy" but it would satisfy everyone and everything, permanently.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You seem to be in search of attonement or absolution. Trying to achieve that through the university's administration seems unwise: at absolute best you might get a lukewarm "well, it's done now, don't worry about it". At worst, you could create a big mess that will cause a lot of work for a lot of people, and not actually make anything better for anyone.
I'd suggest looking for your forgiveness through other channels, whether they are therapy, prayer (your mentioned God), or acts of community service. Maybe you could look at mentoring young students or something (for free) as your act of penance.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You were lucky to not have been caught apart from your conscience. You found integrity in yourself. This will prove useful - you will now know its value going forward, more so than someone that never saw temptation. There is not much value to make the system punish in this matter you if you have seen the error of your ways yourself and are determined not to repeat them.
I pick up another point that others pointed out, unfortunately only in comments: do the work again, yourself. Submit it to the court of your own ambition to convince yourself that you would have been able to do that. If successful, it means that you have, in a way, "taken out a loan of skill" which you now pay back. If you can, try to pay it back with interest, with a more ambitious version of the work you should have done.
To be sure: I do not condone cheating at all, I think it is wrong for many reasons, and not just fairness. But you have deeply understood that it's wrong and, for this integrity you found in yourself, you deserve respect.
"Go forth and sin no more." - There's wisdom in these words. Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I recommend a three-pronged "attack" to your personal *road to perdition*1-like journey:
### 1. Don't do anything sudden
This one is nicely covered in several other answers and comments here. It is not likely the system is equipped for this, and blurting out admissions without planning could trigger all kinds of permanently damaging things you and your family do not deserve.
That you have posted a question here in Stack Exchange to help think this through shows that you may already recognize this possibility, so ***kudos to you!***
### 2. If you are like me, you may feel things that were not done right or correctly should eventually be corrected when possible.
Other answers indicate that one way to "make things right" from your own perspective and feelings 2 would be to find a way to retake or re-audit the class. That may be impossible right now, but go ahead and find out what the processes might be and make a plan to do it as some point in the future.
Make an effort to find out all your options along these lines, and do it in such a way (via emails with dates) that it is documented and your intentions are clear. That's the beginning of your...
### 3. Cleanup in Aisle 7
In [my answer to a somewhat different circumstance *What should I do if I did someone else's homework a few years ago?*](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/173958/69206) I wrote
>
> Times are different. This is the age of the internet, and "The internet’s not written in pencil... it’s written in ink."3
>
>
>
You don't know where your future will take you. I can speak from personal experience that turmoil, confusion, depression, "bad places" we go mentally generally *get better* over time, and in future years and decades you may be supporting yourself and your family in a position with some visibility.
You might even end up in a situation where they do background checks or there's competition for a competitive position, or eve running for political office some day, perhaps at a local level or beyond.
If you have made some "atonement" or efforts4 to deal with the situation by retaking or re-auditing, or at least exploring those possibilities in a documented way via emails, or even taken a similar class later; basically *taken some action*, then when you follow others' good advice here and put it behind you (i.e. focus on the future, deal with present responsibilities of job and family) you can then
1. put your worries here aside and focus on all the new worries and challenges that life keeps putting in front of us
2. but know that if this somehow ever comes up again, you can *demonstrate* that this bothered you and you took what actions were available for atonement while simultaneously not putting your responsibilities towards your family at risk. You chose a course of action that was reasonable, reasoned, recognizant, and responsible.
3. did not engage in "scandal cover-up behavior" that could cause trouble later4
---
* 1[<NAME> says no-one ever talks about his favorite movie](https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/tom-hanks-favourite-movie-revealed) *Road to Perdition* [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Perdition), [IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257044/)
* 2 or if some day this ever finds its way back to you during a background check for a future job or by some bad-intentioned individual
* 3 <NAME> quote from [The Social Network](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/)
* 4 While the [twelve step process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps) does not apply here directly, they do contain some elements - feelings of guilt and/or regret do haunt us sometimes and cause trouble later. A summary of steps #8 and #9 would be that we should try to make some effort to fix stuff, **except when the fix could cause even more problems** for others (in this case your family) or you. In those cases, letting "sleeping dogs lie" is recognized as the most compassionate and correct course of action.
* 5 for an extreme example of "trouble later" see: Washington Post's June 15, 2019 [Echoes of Biden’s 1987 plagiarism scandal continue to reverberate](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/echoes-of-bidens-1987-plagiarism-scandal-continue-to-reverberate/2019/06/05/dbaf3716-7292-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html) and Wikipedia [Joe Biden 1988 presidential campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_1988_presidential_campaign) Had he taken remedial action at the time in a way that could be pointed to after the fact, it would have been better.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: You arent alone, especially with COVID a lot of people did college this way. Learn from it and move on. Dwelling will just hurt you more.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/26
| 798
| 3,230
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently interviewed on campus for a position and am in waiting period limbo. Two members of the search committee, including the chair, follow me on Twitter and have been liking/retweeting me since my campus visit. Obviously I’m trying to read tea leaves, as any nervous candidate would, but also - what are broader thoughts about this? Seems like a no-no; could it sink a search? Does it count as contact outside of process?<issue_comment>username_1: No, I wouldn't consider these interactions as meaning anything or in some way invalidating the process.
Sometimes people do not even care who the person who writes the tweet is, but only retweet for the content.
But I understand your position, and that you are trying to read between the lines and predict the outcome.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If they are liking and retweeting, presumably they like what you wrote and this by itself will not sink your candidacy.
As a former member of many search committees, I find it very unprofessional of them. You don't mess with people's hopes, especially something as important as a faculty job. They could at least have waited until they offered you the job, or the search was over.
This is not a popular view, but in social media I only see downsides and no upside. Having a public archive of every stupid opinion I've had has no appeal to me. If I were looking for a job, I'd take down all social media.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know anything about filling academic positions, but if this happened when you were applying for a regular job then it would be highly inappropriate behaviour by the search committee members. This would be an employment tribunal claim just waiting to happen!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> *Two members of the search committee, including the chair, follow me on Twitter and have been liking/retweeting me since my campus visit*
>
>
>
If they followed you before the interview, they need not stop following you. As someone that has been in Recruitment & Selection committees (search committee as referred to here), I'll pause activities on your SM posts till after the process. At best, I'll be hesitant to 'engage'
If not following (you) before (before the interview), definitely I'll only start following and engaging after the process wraps up. Even at that, I'll keep engagement on your posts professionally on academic contents only.
This is from a ethics, integrity, morality standpoint. Sadly, this is not universal.
They should give thought to
* how you'll feel and also position they would put you in
* what other candidates might feel should they know or find out about your candidacy
In some countries, all shortlisted candidates are made known to all shortlisted candidates or are made known on request
* possibility of opening themselves up to 'complaint' or 'dispute' or even 'litigation' from unsuccessful candidates (which might even be yourself)
* (risk of) jeopardising the hiring (recruitment) process
With those said,
>
> Does it count as contact outside of process?
>
>
>
Mere liking and retweeting wouldn't in the true sense.
However, they should tread on the path of caution.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/26
| 3,808
| 15,287
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a 3rd year phd student in Europe, and my advisor told me that he has a neurological issue.
I believe that this is causing some terrible form of mental deterioration which is affecting my work.
Among the things that happened with him:
* He has always been forgetful, but lately, he cannot remember any of my explanations. This makes our meetings incredibly frustrating, since I spend all of our meeting time explaining to him the same ideas over and over again. I would be okay with never meeting him, but unfortunately since this semester I turned down one of his ideas and have been meeting with me less, he wrote that I have not been progressing this semester. Therefore I am bound to have these pointless meetings
* he has been delaying editing a joint paper of ours for over a year and a half (I would be fine if he wouldn't edit it but he insists on doing this), and during that time his other student improved this result. He suggested that I improve his student's result and I refused to (partially since this is insulting and will not further me).
* lately I feel like his memory is deteriorating very quickly. For example, I'm very pregnant and every time he sees me, he says "I totally forgot you are pregnant. When are you due?" But then forgets my answer.
* he never checks our joint work and then blames it on me. I have written explanations for him and sent him explanations that others wrote and he never reads them.
* if I send him any written text, he will ask to meet so I can make sure that he reads the text and he asks me questions while reading (the same ones I have answered 10000 times before). Then he tells me that it is not his role to read things that I write and is angry at me for wasting his time.
Besides telling me he has a neurological issue, I don't know for sure that it is degenerative, and therefore cannot report him.
Since he forgot what I have done in the PhD and therefore is not sure when or if I can graduate (I should graduate next year and look for a postdoc this October).
I have spoken to him about this and he told me that there is nothing wrong extending my PhD. Honestly I want to graduate next year so I will not have to deal with him and so that he won't forget me by the time I graduate so he can write me a good letter.
What are my options if indeed there is a mental deterioration on his part? I don't have a committee or lab director to report to rather the system is built in a way that I report all issues to my advisor (who is my issue). Also, how do I protect myself in case he really loses his mind?<issue_comment>username_1: I was initially tempted to quip that *all* advisors are forgetful and need to get content from the last meeting re-explained in the current meeting, but given that they acknowledge that they have some neurological issue (and given that they seem to forget basic things such as that you are pregnant) I do agree that this is worrisome and should be addressed.
At the end of the day, I fully agree with user438383 in a comment - you need to raise this issue to the department level, which may include the chair of PhD studies and/or your department head. If you are uncomfortable with this you may also talk to a trusted colleague (ideally another professor) and ask them to raise these issues with the department (and rather ASAP than "at some point"). At the end of the day your supervision is only one of many tasks that your advisor will have serious troubles with, and it is certainly possible that they need immediate medical help (even if they are themselves not fully aware of it). If you are having a *very* good relationship with your advisor you can also bring it up with them (very, very carefully), but if you have a more traditional student/teacher relationship this is probably not really your place and should be done by your advisor's boss, colleagues, or a medical professional.
That said, when you raise this (to anybody), make very sure to stick to the facts as observed and do not dabble in diagnosing your advisor ("is uncharacteristically forgetful, to a fairly extreme degree" is a fact, "mental capacity has degenerated and cannot advise anybody anymore" is a diagnosis).
*Edit:* I should say, not so much for OP as for other readers of this question with advisors that are extraordinarily forgetful: usually, we advisors do not forget things because we are incompetent or mentally degrading, but rather because our jobs are **very busy**. If an advisor suddenly becomes noticeably more forgetful than usual, I would assume they are (over-)stressed rather than sick per se. I don't think that stress alone can explain forgetting multiple times that a close colleague is visibly pregnant, though.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In some EU countries, there is the PhD **tutor** in addition to the advisor. I know for sure that the tutor figure exists in Italy, for example. The tutor is another professor selected by you at the beginning of your PhD course, which *should be* unrelated to your advisor (e.g., another lab, another research area, etc.). The tutor is almost useless for most of the PhD students, however, in case you experience any problem with your advisor during your PhD path, (s)he can try to mediate.
This is a good case to discuss with the tutor, who can then inform the PhD coordinator or the department head.
In case in your country does not have the tutor figure, you can try with another professor you know and you feel confident to discuss this issue.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If you believe that this is affecting your graduation and, hence, your career, then you should take some action. The most appropriate, if you can't work it out with the advisor directly, is to ask for guidance from someone like the department head or a dean; someone with overall authority. You may get advised to find another (or co-) advisor to guarantee your timely completion.
But, don't make a *complaint*. Just ask for guidance. The institution has a responsibility to you.
It is probably too late for switching advisors to be a good move, but having someone else watch over your progress/process might be a solution.
However, there is at least one fairly common reason for the behavior you describe that doesn't involve any sort of deterioration. Some people go into a *zone* in their research where nothing else registers. Their mental process is so wrapped up in some problem that they just forget that the rest of the world exists at all.
There is one (apocryphal?) story of a famous mathematician(?) who was lost (in thought as well as location) on a street and asked a little girl on a nearby porch "Miss, can you help me find my way home?". The answer was "Yes, Daddy."
One other reason for being (extremely) forgetful is aging. Some people have recall problems with certain sorts of things as they age. This isn't (may not be) due to disease, I'm told.
I've "suffered" from both of these, though not to the degree you describe. I have trouble, now, recalling words, though I know the concept behind them. No trouble with faces, thankfully. And I've had some experience with zoning out also.
But, the important thing is to assure that your graduation isn't affected, no matter the cause.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Perhaps authorities should be informed, however: I would say that if the University takes action and removes the professor, this could significantly delay your graduation as a PhD. Typically, switching advisors usually requires starting over on the dissertation and so forth, at least here in the U.S. You may wish to check with another professor who is eligible to potentially be your advisor to see if they are willing so to do, and if so, if they would accept most of your research and progress toward your dissertation.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I think that even an adviser who doesn't know, or maybe doesn't have a neurological problem, can behave like this. There are about two solutions:
* either find another adviser (but in some institutions, it is not possible without the current one agrees),
* or find another adviser, informally consult with him/her and do it according to him/her. It might be a friend, someone online, or just a smart fellow student. In extreme case you can become a supervisor to yourself, learning everything from literature and the Internet. But it is not so good as you can reflect your thought with a partner. When your supervisor sends something back to you for revision, don't react to it and move on. It rarely happens that a supervisor "sinks" the good work of his own doctoral student.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> I am a 3rd year phd student in Europe,
> (...)
> I don't have a committee or lab director to report to rather the
> system is built in a way that I report all issues to my advisor (who
> is my issue). Also, how do I protect myself in case he really loses
> his mind?
>
>
>
If you are in a "normal" institution in Europe (university, technical school, ...) then there is always an organizational structure. This may not be a *managerial* one but there is someone you can go and talk to.
You can start bottom-up (see who is listed as the head of the group your advisor is in), or from the top (you arrange for a meeting with the dean or president and go from there). The latter will be longer.
>
> my advisor told me that he has a neurological issue.
>
>
>
Please keep in mind that this information may be legally personal, depending on where you are. In other words, you need to be careful mentioning that to other people, at least in written form.
I understand you are upset, this is normal. I will however try to address your points in a neutral way - because you need to talk to the people above and have **clear and clean** messages so that they can make decisions. Your opinion about the "why" is secondary, to say the least (and possibly counterproductive).
Please let me try to rephrase your points in something more "presentable" (as arguments)
>
> I believe that this is causing some terrible form of mental
> deterioration which is affecting my work.
>
>
>
That you do not know. What you know is that there are some issues that were not there X years ago and you are worried.
>
> He has always been forgetful, but lately, he cannot remember any of my
> explanations. This makes our meetings incredibly frustrating since I
> spend all of our meeting time explaining to him the same ideas over
> and over again. I would be okay with never meeting him, but
> unfortunately since this semester I turned down one of his ideas and
> have been meeting with me less, he wrote that I have not been
> progressing this semester. Therefore I am bound to have these
> pointless meetings
>
>
>
You are usually expected to have meetings with your advisor (at least some, where you cross-check how it is going). Your problem is that the quality has been strangely lowering with time, with more time passed to discuss the past than the current state (and the future).
>
> he has been delaying editing a joint paper of ours for over a year and
> a half (I would be fine if he wouldn't edit it but he insists on doing
> this), and during that time his other student improved this result. He
> suggested that I improve his student's result and I refused to
> (partially since this is insulting and will not further me).
>
>
>
Your work on a paper has been delayed and will soon be void because of progress by others. It is still time to salvage that but the paper needs to go.
>
> lately I feel like his memory is deteriorating very quickly. For
> example, I'm very pregnant and every time he sees me, he says "I
> totally forgot you are pregnant. When are you due?" But then forgets
> my answer.
>
>
>
That one is a good point. No matter what I can hardly imagine forgetting that one of my students was very pregnant.
>
> he never checks our joint work and then blames it on me. I have
> written explanations for him and sent him explanations that others
> wrote and he never reads them.
>
>
> if I send him any written text, he will ask to meet so I can make sure
> that he reads the text and he asks me questions while reading (the
> same ones I have answered 10000 times before). Then he tells me that
> it is not his role to read things that I write and is angry at me for
> wasting his time.
>
>
>
You are having a hard time setting up a working routine that is efficient. Your proposal to send memos about your progress is met with requests to meet, during which you are told not to write anything (at least this is how I understand what you wrote in that point)
>
> Besides telling me he has a neurological issue, I don't know for sure
> that it is degenerative, and therefore cannot report him.
>
>
>
It is not your job to "report" someone who has a medical problem. You should report the issues you are faced with and let the other side make up their mind (possibly by *carefully* hinting them about a possible reason, but again be careful here).
Since your advisor is part of a group, it is likely that you are not the only one noticing the symptoms.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Find another advisor, seriously. I was in a similar position and it was hell. It severely impacted my quality of life and in the end, it seriously hurt my career choices (he'd often forget to send letters of rec for internships and jobs even with frequent reminders).
Hell, even sharing a document for publication was miserable. Everytime he made (various) typos that would prevent the document from compiling, I'd have to debug it for hours, only for him to go and reintroduce the same errors afterwards. Progressively, every aspect of the experience was orders of magnitude more difficult than it needed to be, and for no good reason. Though I was heavily ambitious, I hardly got any publications despite working significantly more than my cohorts. I could rant for hours about it and other details, but honestly the only thing I can think back on is how much I wish I'd had switched, even at the cost of being delayed a year or so. Good luck.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: I am loath to say this, but if I were a misogynistic academic (of which there are unfortunately many) and I wanted to subtly punish my pregnant student out of a lack of respect, I might do *exactly* what your advisor is doing.
People are correct that you need to raise this with the dean. You should start documenting *everything*, because if you're lucky, this is "just" dementia and you can work around it by finding another person to advise you. I have a bad feeling you might not be so lucky.
"the system is built in a way that I report all issues to my advisor"
Somehow, I doubt that's fully the case. There's always an ombudsperson and/or a dean. Single-point-of-failure systems do exist, but they're rare.
You should simultaneously also verify that other students are having the exact same issues with your advisor that you are. If they are not, well, sorry, but there you go. If they are, then great and you should follow the advice others here have given you.
Really hope things turn out well - that's an obnoxious situation to be in.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/26
| 2,278
| 9,708
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know that different learning and research institutions have different rules of what a student must achieve to learn their Ph.D. But what are some general or common skills students in fact have to adopt? If we have ranks like Ph.D., docent, and professor each level probably consists of some amount of knowledge or new skills the applicants have to achieve. So I am interested in knowing what those are in general for post-graduate and how they differ from Master's or docent preparation.
I could hypothesize, that the goal is to get deeper knowledge in a specific area and get in touch with certain types of research methods. But into what depth? How it differs from higher-ranking academics, etc.?<issue_comment>username_1: Strictly speaking, to earn a PhD, the skill set is much smaller than it is to be a successful academic. Moreover, some will become successful without some of the nominally *required* skills.
But, for a PhD, the normal requirement is that you demonstrate, via a dissertation, that you can do novel research that contributes to a narrow subfield of some larger field. Along the way, and contributing to that, you generally need broad knowledge of the overall field (math, history, philosophy,...) and the ability to write effectively enough that others accept the results of your research. That also implies that you know the general research process of your field.
While a somewhat narrower set is all you need for the dissertation itself, most graduate education systems insist on the set above, at least.
However, to be an effective academic, you need more in theory, though not everyone will exhibit them in practice. You need communication skills, speaking and writing. Organizational skills (more important in some fields than others). Teaching skills (more important for some careers than others). Interpersonal skills (so that others don't try to exclude you). Ethical skills (so that you don't go off the rails).
And the broader set, above, is synergistic. They contribute to one another.
Probably a few more if I think for a bit longer. But those come mostly independently of the skills required for earning a doctorate and all can be gained and enhanced over time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Something that I have noticed among students is that they generally expect the "next" thing to be basically the same as the thing they are doing right now, only harder. The reality is that most transitions in education represent a change in *kind*. Earning a PhD is not about just studying one thing deeper, or honing a specific set of skills. It is not just "masters work, only harder".
I think that the nature of a PhD program was very well summarized by [<NAME>](https://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tO8Rx.jpg)
Roughly speaking, before you start your PhD work, you are building skills. You are learning the basic language of your chosen field, and learning what has already been done. In a PhD program, you are ostensibly conducting your first semi-independent research project. It is in a PhD program that you learn to be an independent researcher. The goal of PhD research is not deeper learning of what is already known, but pushing the boundaries of what is known.
Upon completing a PhD, the expectation is that you will be able to conduct research on your own. A PhD program is about learning the skills to be an independent researcher.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: **"You demonstrate that you made a meaningful contribution to the sum of total human knowledge."**
* The PhD thesis should include genuinely novel research on a subject. (Some exceptions can be made for simultaneous discoveries, etc.)
* That implies the knowledge of the state of the art in that field to judge where the summary of prior discoveries ends and where the own work starts.
* To be meaningful, the thesis also needs to conform to the professional standards of the field (regarding style, presentation, citation of prior science, etc.) and be published in a professional way.
* In addition, the *candidate* needs to present the results in more accessible formats than the thesis, e.g. lectures, conference talks. Just writing something is not enough if the candidate cannot give suitable lectures to a group of interested undergrad students, and *different* ones to a group of postdocs. (Exceptions may be made to compensate for disabilities, but they must keep sight of the fact that interaction with other researchers is essential.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The idealistic answer is that the student must present a novel discovery in their field. This means it has to be something new - you can't just redo an experiment that was already done. However it doesn't have to be significant or impactful at the PhD level. Even higher-tier programs can be pretty forgiving with "insignificant" discoveries for a dissertation. You will also have to demonstrate sufficient technical knowledge related to your discovery and the ability to communicate it clearly. These are all subjective and decided by your dissertation committee.
Also, historically, a PhD means that you are qualified to teach at the highest levels, i.e. that you may now train other PhDs yourself. These days, the job market is tough, and it is rare to get a faculty position with "just" a PhD. But in principle, the ability to "procreate" is the essence of the PhD. In the 70s and before, it was not uncommon to start a faculty position immediately after completing a PhD.
The "real" answer is that typically it is desirable that:
* You publish many papers
* You publish first author papers
* You publish high impact papers
* You are able to secure grants
* You are highly employable as a postdoc in the field and ideally already have tentative job offers
I said earlier that the discovery doesn't have to be impactful. That's true, but your advisor will not want you to attempt defense if you don't have good papers out. For papers, impact matters. And while technically papers are not required to *defend* a PhD, your advisor's blessing *is*, so you see how that works.
Moreover, remember that early in the PhD there will be a proposal mechanism such as the qualifying exams. This is where you present a detailed proposal of the research you are planning to do for your PhD. Your committee might not accept your proposal if it seems unlikely to yield interesting results. So if you have already passed your quals, done the research, and the results turned out uninteresting - oh well, you "can" still defend (but assuming your advisor or committee doesn't care about lack of strong papers). But they also try to prevent that very situation at the qual stage.
There may also be some trivial institutional requirements such as must have taken X courses, must have TA'd Y times, etc. These will depend on the institution, they're not universal.
>
> So I am interested in knowing what those are in general for post-graduate and how they differ from Master's or docent preparation.
>
>
>
A Master's dissertation does not require the work to be novel. However, like all degrees, a Master's also requires you to satisfy whatever requirements your advisor has. Master's advisors are generally the same professors that take on PhD students, and it's not unheard of for them to have a strong bias towards novel work. So they may insist that you work on novel things or else refuse to let you defend, whether the degree technically requires the work to be novel or not. Also, not all Master's degrees require a dissertation - some just let you complete coursework. Generally, the degree indicates advanced knowledge of a field, which may be desirable for private employers seeking highly trained specialists. A Master's degree does not normally qualify you to train other Master's students, nor indicate the ability to perform independent research, in contrast to a PhD.
I'm not really familiar with docents since they are a European thing. It also varies a lot with country and isn't much of a universality. Generally, this is an expression of a fresh PhD still not being enough to become a professor straight out of school. Since the PhD is now not enough, the grads are expected to publish some more meaty papers, so that a committee can finally certify them as suitable for professorship. Professorship isn't automatic in any country - even in places like USA with no "docent" rank, you still have to first please a department sufficiently as to get hired as a junior professor, then impress them further at tenure review to become a full professor. The things they look at are the same: Do you have many important papers, and are you getting many good grants. Just some countries give you an official title, others handle it more informally.
Technically, a docent must also demonstrate research that is *independent*, as opposed to how a PhD student is *supervised* by someone. However that's sort of a given. There's not many tenure-track post doc positions, and you usually do not get to this stage without already being some sort of faculty.
In sum, I guess you can say that *procedural* requirements dominate the difficulty of obtaining a PhD, MS or docentship. Therefore, many important skill requirements are implicit. Those that are required explicitly paint a very incomplete picture.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: See ["Advice for New Graduate Students", by <NAME> (September 27, 2010)](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2010/09/27/advice-new-graduate-students/), on the Freedom to Tinker blog.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/26
| 2,310
| 10,081
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to find some insight into editorial rejection due to "not easy to access due to style."
I understand that it probably basically means that the paper was hard to read, or the notation was confusing, or the overall structure didn't flow well or something like that. But what I am looking for is insight from folks who are more experienced in terms of what they think the likely cause is.
1. Has anyone ever had similar comments from an editor or reviewer, and if so, what did you do to change your paper?
2. Does anyone here have editor or referee experience where they said something like that to the author, and if so, what did you mean by it?
As far as I can tell, I didn't have any undefined notation, and none of it was strange or obscure. The paper just flowed linearly building as it went, referencing past steps along the way. None of it was multipage proofs using extremely complex theorems. Any complicated theorems used were just standard results from textbooks and always referenced. There was only one proof that took a full page, and most are just 10-20 lines long or less. The paper is normal length, 20 pages in standard latex article document class 11pt font.
Things I can think of that might be the cause are notation being defined in-line instead of as a standalone definition, but this was only done a couple of times, and it isn't anything complicated, just something like vector *x* multiplied by matrix *M* is denoted *x\_M*. That's not exactly it, but pretend such notation made a certain formula really easy to write out and derive (rather than writing *x^t M* over and over).
Another possible cause is that to understand the statement of the main results, you really do need to have some understanding of the underlying concepts.
Obviously, without taking the time to read the manuscript, nobody can give direct feedback, but there has to be somebody here who has helpful thoughts/comments.
I am in a situation where I don't have colleagues capable of commenting on the paper, nor a good research network, so that's kind of out.<issue_comment>username_1: You put yourself in a bind here:
* The editor and the reviewer could not understand your paper.
* You think that your paper is understandable and you do not understand why the editor / reviewer came to this conclusion.
* You need some more immediate feedback, but you ruled that out.
Somehow you have to break this bind.
Now, there is a hint in your question. You seem to write the product of a vector and a matrix using a subscript. This is quite unusual if true. Let's assume that I read your question correctly. Then you have invented your own notation different from the standard notation. Presumably, you have good reasons to like your notation. However, the effect on a more casual reader is a bit disastrous as they need to spend energy to learn your notation and at least in the beginning translate it to standard notation. Unfortunately for you, people that do not use standard notation and prefer their own instead tend to be amateurs and often cranks of the circle-squaring variety. Additionally, you say that all of your theorems use standard textbook results and are short. Frankly, this might mean that you are not using the armory developed in a Mathematical field.
So I *speculate* that you wrote a paper that uses unusual notation and does not seem to be aware of other people's work. Reviewers and editors will not spend a lot of time reading your paper and come up with cryptic reasons for rejection such as the one that you received. There is a chance that you made a real contribution, but you will not get editors and reviewers to read it unless you change the way you write. I assume that you are not working in academia since there are no people that you ask to help you. There are certainly amateur Mathematicians who make valid contribution to the science. They usually write in a more accessible manner.
Now, I am basing my advise on interpreting your question and I might be completely wrong in this. In this case, disregard it.
---
Added after reading the clarifying comments:
You need someone you trust to read your paper. There is no way around this.
Reviewers and editors are not infallible. I would still bet some money on that you have made it more difficult to understand your result by not using standard notation or at least prejudice the reviewer against you.
As a published author, I can assure you that I frequently suffer from author's blindness, meaning I cannot see the problems with my papers. The only good way (other than waiting for a year before rereading the paper) to overcome this is to ask someone else take a look.
I also stand by my diagnosis (as the most likely) that the reviewer / editor did not think you were a serious contributor. This could be because you are not at a research active institution. So, they fed you a cryptic line. Unfortunately, Mathematics paper are very terse, which makes explaining results difficult. But it is on the author to make themselves understood.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This is an easy one. You show it to colleagues and ask them if it's actually hard to read. If you don't have "colleagues capable of commenting on the paper, nor a good research network", then that's now at the top of your list of things to do.
When you find such a network, and they agree with you that it's not hard to read, then it's just a lazy editor.
I once received a rejection with the note "full of spelling and grammar mistakes", but it did not have any. I had a professional editor look at it, and she agreed. It was a lazy editor. I sent it to another journal and it was accepted.
In conclusion, the answer really depends on the actual quality of the writing, and you need an honest opinion about it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: *Native vs. non-native speaker?*
The OP doesn't state whether he/she is a native speaker of English. In my experience, many non-native English speakers speak and write a hybrid of English and their native language in English words.
I mean this in no way derogatory, as I am guilty of this as well, and I fully understand the difficulty of mastering a second language.
In my example, I observe many native German speakers simply transferring the German way of formulating things into an English vocabulary, resulting in long, nested sentences. This is especially the case in writing. Again, no offense to anyone; and also, I am guilty of this too.
*Get a second pair of eyes*
In the German language, there's the wonderful word *Betriebsblind*; which approximately describes a blindness towards the things you regularly do. This also applies to writing papers. When writing a paper about a topic we are very familiar with, we may fall victim to our own Betriebsblindheit by e.g., starting to explain concepts halfway down the logical order of things, because we consider the fundamental concepts as obvious.
Here, I found it beneficial to let someone unrelated to a topic read and comment on the text. Someone completely outside of the topic of the paper will immediately spot gaps in the logical reasoning simply because they know nothing about it, while oneself unconsciously "bridges" these gaps with all one's knowledge.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: To add another point to other great answers.
I'm just speculating because I haven't seen the paper, but this paragraph hints about another possible problem:
>
> As far as I can tell, I didn't have any undefined notation, and none of it was strange or obscure. The paper just flowed linearly building as it went, referencing past steps along the way. [...] The paper is normal length, 20 pages in standard latex article document class 11pt font.
>
>
>
Researchers don't actually usually read papers from beginning to end. Most go through a lot of papers and just skim through to find the interesting parts. Only if the paper seems interesting, they may want to read the full paper, to understand the full derivation in order to find insights (or even to check correctness when in doubt). But this usually happens only *after* figuring out what the main results are.
This presents a challenge of balancing different objectives when writing a paper:
* You obviously need to write your article so that the derivation is logically correct.
* You need to give enough background so that readers unfamiliar to the particular topic can understand the result without too much extra trouble. For that, the way you present stuff is important: Using standard notation removes some boundaries, but sometimes introducing new notation might assist reading.
* **But you also need to make it clear enough so that experts already familiar with the topic can spot the important parts quickly.**
Just from the way you wrote your question, it looks like you *might* have only focused on the first two items.
Could it be that even experts familiar with the area can't understand your main result without carefully reading through all your definitions? In that case, perhaps you could reformulate the paper so that the main result is more obvious to those who already have the necessary background.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Publishing in journals is a form of socializing. (It's a peculiar kind of socializing, but still.) Journals may claim that they exist in order to publish new and interesting results, but that's only a small part of it. They mainly exist in order to get read. Therefore, the articles can't just be fascinating and enlightening - they also have to be popular with the people who might read that journal. The fact that you have ended up somewhat professionally isolated takes away your ability to gauge how much your colleagues LIKE the paper. The real way forward is to change the final sentence of your original post: "I am in a situation where I don't have colleagues capable of commenting on the paper, nor a good research network, so that's where I'm going to focus 99% of my future effort if I expect to publish."
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/27
| 1,274
| 5,476
|
<issue_start>username_0: First of all, I have to say, that English is not my native language so I am not sure if the term "reflectional essay" is correct. I found it in the dictionary. So let me explain first what I mean.
By this designation, I mean a stylistic unit where the writer thinks about a topic, mentions his thoughts, and perhaps pictures with them.
I have seen similar texts in professional and impact journals, but I found information that such reflections, sometimes including a summary of a topic, are usually written by renowned experts on the given topic, and the editor of the magazine asks them to do so. That is reversed approach than when the author of the article *de facto* requests its inclusion in the journal.
It follows from this that a Ph.D. student probably won't be able to publish such an opinion in an impacted journal, but they can still publish it elsewhere. Sometimes I find references to these types of texts in the "professional literature" (sometimes they are even debates, other times non-expert reflections). So the question is whether it is worth it for a Ph.D. student to waste time writing down his thoughts on a certain topic (even if they are new) when he should primarily focus on discovering something and eventually publish a standard article in an impacted journal?<issue_comment>username_1: Many researchers use other media for that type of content. For example, their web pages. This would be a good option for someone just starting out. It is true that it will not have the impact that a publication can have, but those who are really interested in the subject will surely read it, as long as the format is serious and rigorous. Also, if they manage to become known, their websites will also have a lot of popularity.
So, my answer is yes, I think it could be very worth it for PhD students to write down and share their thoughts.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> By this designation, I mean a stylistic unit where the writer thinks about a topic, mentions his thoughts, and perhaps pictures with them.
>
>
>
In my discipline I usually hear the term "essay" for this kind of writing. Such articles do indeed exist, but they are indeed qualitatively different from "research articles" or "literature surveys" (the other two major types of papers that appear in the scientific literature of my field).
Most of the essay-style papers I am aware of or was involved with were:
* Either: written by invitation. Some journals have ongoing topical "columns" for which a specific person is asked to either provide a short article every issue, or find somebody else to write a short article on the topic for an issue. These articles are almost always "essay" articles, reflections on a certain aspect of the literature. As you say, invitations for such essays are usually given to well-known experts, but these experts do often team up with (some of) their doctoral students or collaborators since the reflections of a team tend to be more interesting than the reflections of a single person. I was involved in multiple such papers during my PhD, but it's not really something you can trigger or plan as a student.
* Or: submitted to special tracks. Some conferences and journals have special tracks asking explicitly for essays and reflections ([here](https://2021.splashcon.org/track/splash-2021-Onward-Essays) is an example in the field of programming languages). If your field has something similar, submitting your essay there would be feasible.
>
> So the question is whether it is worth it for a Ph.D. student to waste time writing down his thoughts on a certain topic (even if they are new)
>
>
>
That depends. I am a strong believer that you should not "tune" your PhD experience only towards what gives you to maximum number of output for your time - if you would enjoy writing such an article, believe you have valuable insights to share, and see an opportunity, then there is nothing wrong with going for it.
That said, I usually do not encourage my students to submit essay papers without an explicit invitation unless they really want to, since (a) the more custom a paper is to a specific venue, the higher your risk (if the *one* essay track in your community does not like the paper, then what do you do with that writing?), and (b) it is never quite clear how much your PhD committee or a future faculty search committee will value that kind of non-traditional writing (everything from "counts as a normal article" to "no value at all" is possible, depending on the person). That's fine if you spent a week writing up a short invited essay for a column, but maybe not so great if it takes you months to collect your thoughts, write and revise a detailed full-paper-length essay.
Of course, there are alternative ways to communicate your opinions - many researchers have blogs, and social media (particularly Twitter in my community) has established itself is the primary way to communicate opinions about the literature rather than primary research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This kind of reflection can be very valuable *to you*. Thinking about how your work fits in a broader context and thinking about how you think may suggest new paths for the work itself. So write those thoughts down. The effort may pay off even if no one reads what you post on your web page.
As you grow professionally you will see how to revise them.
Your written English is just fine.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/27
| 1,164
| 4,802
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been independently working on a substantial idea. The results of my work have been compiled into a complete manuscript.
However, I think I need to have an expert in the field reviewing it to check for potential flaws prior to publication. Then I want to include him in co-authorship. The expert I look for is a professor in another country and we have had no prior contact.
Is it inappropriate to send him a request via email and explain the aforementioned story?
PS: I am a Master's graduate with previous publications. Any elaborate advice or template on how to approach is much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't believe it's at all inappropriate to ask for their feedback. I literally do this all the time (in causal inference, my field, it never hurts to reach out to subject matter experts). In [my first paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4196189) (currently RR'd at Stata Journal), I thanked A LOT of people in the footnotes, because A LOT of econometricians took time to read my work and give very very good feedback on it... but I didn't include them as coauthors to that paper because that paper is mine, and mine alone.
With this said, if they want to be a coauthor cool, that's great. But, I *do* believe it is wrong to ask them for co-authorship, *unless* and until you're prepared to work on it as a proper collaboration (that is, a true collaboration, not simply feedback). In this business, authorship is warranted with contribution. If you did all the hard work, if you were up til and past midnight running code to solve problems and make sure things worked properly, if you've revised the manuscript 100 times from beginning to end, taking every pain to ensure that it's written as logically and as succinctly as possible, if you were the one who called all the shots and had eureka moments at 2am about the way to solve the newest problem you'd been facing, then ***you*** are the one who *deserves* authorship, and while other people may give comments (that we are very most grateful for!!), they should decidedly not be included as co-authors, unless they are prepared to make it their paper as much as it is theirs, and vice versa.
Authorship is conferred with *contribution*, not simply strength or knowledge.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There's nothing inappropriate about sending an email with a request. The difficult part might be [getting a response](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9542/is-ignoring-emails-acceptable-in-academia).
I would frame the request not as a quid pro quo, but as an offer for collaboration. We are all afraid of getting suckered into a 'collaboration' where we do all the work and the other person/team shares the credit. You are offering the opposite of that, and assuming you are not a crank (you are not 'disproving' evolution, are you?), it could be an attractive proposition to the other side. Just keep your email short and to the point, and don't be disappointed if the other part does not agree that your idea is that substantial.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Actually, I'd suggest that you not do that and that you just submit your work to an appropriate journal.
There are two negatives in your plan. The first is that reviewing a finished work isn't grounds for co-authorship. Had you contacted the professor much earlier, when the ideas were being formed, then it would be an actual collaboration. And if the paper is without merit, a reviewer or editor will tell you as much.
The other downside, given all you say, is that the professor might interpret your request as trying to trade off of their reputation.
Also, though not in the same league as the above, sending a paper to someone you don't know in a first/blind email is fairly unlikely to get any response.
If your paper is your own work as as good as you can make it, then have some confidence and send it off to a journal.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Can you ask some professor of your university to give some feedback? Go to their office hour, bring your printed manuscript and explain what you explained to us.
Con: They might be less expert in the topic of your work.
Pro: They know the standards of your fields and how to write a scientific paper. Further, they might help you directing to the next step, like starting a real collaboration with someone, improving parts of the paper, or submitting directly to a journal.
Pro: They might me more inclined to help a master student of their own faculty compared to the other professor who would be helping an anonymous student from another country.
Pro: You get direct feedback, you don't have to wait for weeks without knowing whether you will get an answer at all.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/28
| 1,175
| 4,810
|
<issue_start>username_0: I started writing medical content in 2021. Before that, I had never published (or attempted to publish) anything related to medical content. Since then, I have published around 40-50 manuscripts, out of which, mostly are case reports. About 15 out of these are indexed in PubMed.
Still, I wonder, whether one is considered a researcher if they have not published any research per se, like me. Being a clinician who is not working in a university, opportunities to conduct research are minimal and it is out of your own interest that you continue academic writing.
Let me know your thoughts on this. Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: I don't believe it's at all inappropriate to ask for their feedback. I literally do this all the time (in causal inference, my field, it never hurts to reach out to subject matter experts). In [my first paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4196189) (currently RR'd at Stata Journal), I thanked A LOT of people in the footnotes, because A LOT of econometricians took time to read my work and give very very good feedback on it... but I didn't include them as coauthors to that paper because that paper is mine, and mine alone.
With this said, if they want to be a coauthor cool, that's great. But, I *do* believe it is wrong to ask them for co-authorship, *unless* and until you're prepared to work on it as a proper collaboration (that is, a true collaboration, not simply feedback). In this business, authorship is warranted with contribution. If you did all the hard work, if you were up til and past midnight running code to solve problems and make sure things worked properly, if you've revised the manuscript 100 times from beginning to end, taking every pain to ensure that it's written as logically and as succinctly as possible, if you were the one who called all the shots and had eureka moments at 2am about the way to solve the newest problem you'd been facing, then ***you*** are the one who *deserves* authorship, and while other people may give comments (that we are very most grateful for!!), they should decidedly not be included as co-authors, unless they are prepared to make it their paper as much as it is theirs, and vice versa.
Authorship is conferred with *contribution*, not simply strength or knowledge.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There's nothing inappropriate about sending an email with a request. The difficult part might be [getting a response](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9542/is-ignoring-emails-acceptable-in-academia).
I would frame the request not as a quid pro quo, but as an offer for collaboration. We are all afraid of getting suckered into a 'collaboration' where we do all the work and the other person/team shares the credit. You are offering the opposite of that, and assuming you are not a crank (you are not 'disproving' evolution, are you?), it could be an attractive proposition to the other side. Just keep your email short and to the point, and don't be disappointed if the other part does not agree that your idea is that substantial.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Actually, I'd suggest that you not do that and that you just submit your work to an appropriate journal.
There are two negatives in your plan. The first is that reviewing a finished work isn't grounds for co-authorship. Had you contacted the professor much earlier, when the ideas were being formed, then it would be an actual collaboration. And if the paper is without merit, a reviewer or editor will tell you as much.
The other downside, given all you say, is that the professor might interpret your request as trying to trade off of their reputation.
Also, though not in the same league as the above, sending a paper to someone you don't know in a first/blind email is fairly unlikely to get any response.
If your paper is your own work as as good as you can make it, then have some confidence and send it off to a journal.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Can you ask some professor of your university to give some feedback? Go to their office hour, bring your printed manuscript and explain what you explained to us.
Con: They might be less expert in the topic of your work.
Pro: They know the standards of your fields and how to write a scientific paper. Further, they might help you directing to the next step, like starting a real collaboration with someone, improving parts of the paper, or submitting directly to a journal.
Pro: They might me more inclined to help a master student of their own faculty compared to the other professor who would be helping an anonymous student from another country.
Pro: You get direct feedback, you don't have to wait for weeks without knowing whether you will get an answer at all.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/28
| 1,214
| 5,123
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a second year Ph.D. student in STEM and I have a lot of "clashes" with my advisor. Some are serious issues: (1) he wouldn't talk to me, the 1st author, about a project and instead met 1-1 with a different student, (2) he made me put students as authors on a paper they didn't work on to boost their paper count, etc. Other issues are due to personality, which I think is ok and just something that happens in life.
My advisor is always *telling* me what projects to work on. If I bring up ideas that I have, he squashes them because "they are not best paper award worthy". I've expressed many times that I want to do try different projects and first he said he would help me find another Professor to collaborate with (he did not do this) and now he is telling me that I can't do work with other Profs because "it doesn't align with the interests of other students in the lab" or other illogical excuses.
I am on NSF GRFP now, but he did fund me for my first year. My question is this: since he doesn't fund me now, how much can he control what I work on and who I work with? I'm trying to find a middle ground, but he seems to want to shut down my other interests entirely. I want to figure out how much I can push back/ ignore, given my funding situation.<issue_comment>username_1: For an advisor - advise relationship to work there has to be a minimum of trust. If you ask on the internet how much you can ignore your advisor, then I would say that there is a problem. Maybe you can fix it with a number of open discussions. Maybe these discussions work better with a mediator. Maybe you can add a co-advisor. Maybe you need to change advisors. Maybe you need to move on and go to a different university/country/career. We do not know your exact situation, but ignoring your advisor is at a minimum not productive and in all likelihood is going to have more negative consequences for you. That does not have to be retaliations. Consider the stress of many uncomfortable and useless conversations with an advisor you don't trust. That can add up real quick, without anyone consciously trying to harm you. Consider all the misunderstandings that are going to happen due to lack of trust and lack of communication.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends on if the advisor is the indifferent or controlling type, and it seems that your advisor is the controlling type, so the short answer to your question title is *a lot*.
One of the great benefits of a GRFP is that you become very attractive to other advisors and programs. You are someone with a proven ability to get grants, and you come for free since the grant pays your stipend. I had a GRFP and saw it first hand.
You have to understand that there are many styles of advising. I once worked with an advisor who told everybody what to do. He would not read any proposals or consider any experiments brought up by grad students. And just like your advisor, he practiced the idea that everybody in the lab got to be an author on every paper produced in the lab, regardless of contribution. To me it felt like I was being used as a technician and not given any training in the research process, which starts with how to choose projects. To my surprise, other grad students thought he was too hands-off! They just wanted to come in the morning, be told what to do, leave early in the afternoon, and graduate with papers. That didn't work for me. So I switched to another advisor at another university.
The new advisor was of the type that gave you a desk, lab space, and "see you in 4 years when you have a thesis draft for me to read." He never failed to give me advice when I requested it, but what I really appreciated was his confidence in me, that I would figure it out, and the intellectual freedom to pursue whatever idea I wanted. I controlled the authors' list on my papers (I'm on the generous side when it comes to adding authors, but would never add someone who has not contributed.) I produced 5 papers in 3 years with him, all with him as coauthor. I was happy, he was happy, and we are still friends.
So my advice is that you find an advisor who has the right amount of involvement/control/hands-off style that fits your temperament. The GRFP gives you that freedom. Your proposal to ignore your advisor seems, looking at the details you provide about your relationship, like a really bad idea.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The leverage your advisor has is always the same - they can stop being your advisor.
Your leverage is also always the same - you can stop being their student.
Now, your funding source can change what effects the ending of this relationship has. In particular, having your own funding might make it easier for you to find a new advisor or be accepted at a different university. Local department politics might determine whether you can switch advisors, and your situation might determine how attractive going to a different university would be.
If you are unable or unwilling to change advisors, you have the same leverage no matter where your funding comes from.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/28
| 2,212
| 8,828
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have heard over and over again that most journal editors have a negative attitude against papers with one author when the author is a less-experienced non-academic (let's say a Master's graduate), without paying much attention to the quality of the paper.
I have even read a blog about how Einstein had the same problem in publishing his first papers.
Does such a phenomenon exist? If it does, how unethical it is? and what could be done about it?
**PS:**
*Once, I sent a manuscript, which I thought was substantial and important, to 10 journals, and all of them rejected it before sending it to review. Then I've done something unethical out of my sense of despair, based on cluelessness and what I had repetitively heard. I only altered the title and added 2 academic friends as co-authors, nothing more. Then I sent it again, to one of the journals who had rejected it before. Subsequently, it was sent for peer review and got accepted after minor revisions.*<issue_comment>username_1: Many newbies think they know how to do research, and would like to report the Earth is flat. Consequently, an editor will immediately know that the person does not belong, which leads to rejection.
Single author papers are fine as long as the author is competent. Check out the story of <NAME>; <https://www.quantamagazine.org/yitang-zhang-proves-landmark-theorem-in-distribution-of-prime-numbers-20130519/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I can't comment on your specific situation. But the overall question seems to essentially be are there biases in journal publishing? The answer is certainly 'yes' (as there are in pretty much all areas of life).
The identity/affiliation of the authors can influence the editors/reviewers (also for grants, awards, etc). This seems to be widely acknowledged (even see [this PhD comic](https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=562)) although I'm not aware of any study attempting to quantify it.
Should it be this way - no. Some journals run double-blind peer reviewing which can help with this, although the editors may still know the identity of the authors (double blind peer review is rare in my field). But it's extremely difficult/impossible to remove all biases from any activity in which humans are involved.
How unethical is it? This is difficult to answer, it goes against the principles of science. How unethical would depend on details of the specific case. There can be very good reasons for editors to desk reject papers, and papers also get desk rejected for the wrong reasons. This is not necessarily malice or unethical editor behaviour.
We need to recognise that journal publishing is a business. Papers by 'big' names will inevitably get more citations which improves the journal impact factor, etc. So editors have some incentives which may conflict with the pure scientific ideal.
I have never heard of a bias specifically against number of authors (although this may be field dependent).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Unfortunately, there are plenty of biases in publishing that I don't like. But to answer you generally, no. Editors don't care about experience, they care about expertise. If you can dance with the top people in your field and not miss many steps, then you can make it into these prestigious journals. *Not* guaranteed of course, but you have a shot. What's my proof? [This.](https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/black-high-school-students-solve-155406938.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIGyzxXdwZi-2RIp92S-c-AiHX3Tltx8OD5p5xYEe4zFPJzOFd6io6LVtNoL0qrGQ1Bpa5bZ3oumkdTdcFwCsToXh3KR4o3MnLgzf0H1AT8vj_GyDow3XbQ2Dol_14ySXttLJeVfj86mw_sRQ7TO7lded10DwB9Ow13d75-F5fuw) These girls are children, compared to us. And yet, without a Bachelor's degree to their name, they *still* were able to get accepted into the American Mathematical Society. Caveats? Their work isn't peer reviewed yet. But either way, the fact they made it into a conference filled with PhDs and professional mathematicians tells you that your status is only an indicator, it is not a complete measurement on your abilities or where your work truly belongs.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: I can give a personal anecdote - I recently wrote my first paper, which was a single author paper in pure mathematics. I wrote this between my 3rd and 4th year as an undergraduate, and submitted it at the start of my 4th year.
It was accepted by a high quality journal, and should appear very soon! I will begin my PhD in September, and despite this I have had no problem with academics taking me seriously. Perhaps the fact I'm at a well known and highly respected university helps, and maybe the culture is different in other areas of academia - this is just my own experience.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: What the editor cares is about the content, with proper scientific approach undertaken in the manuscript. There are many single authored articles in many reputed journals. (Myself included). I have shown my professor my own written manuscript, and he would decide whether he wants to be the coauthor. This gives me a chance to write, select the journal, and to go through the entire review process on my own. And from my own experience, affiliation did not matter in my case.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: I'd think that most editors would agree to the statement that whether a paper is rejected or not should exclusively depend on its content and not on its authorship. I also think that most editors, most of the time, try their best to live by this principle.
There is unconscious bias however (and maybe occasionally conscious bias), so it seems realistic, by and large, that a one-author paper by a newbie has higher chances of being desk-rejected by the editor than the same paper with one or more big names among the authors.
Still I'd think that the newbie who writes a paper that is indeed good enough has very good chances to not be desk rejected. Based on my experience as author, reviewer, associate editor and editor, bias will rather make an editor too reluctant to reject a big name paper than making it very likely to reject a really good paper by a newbie.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: The editors may use author's credentials and reputation as a proxy to quickly estimate the quality of the paper. "Paying attention to the quality", i.e. giving a paper a careful read, is not free, it expends finite and valuable resources, and the editor should allocate them wisely. Mistakes may occur, which is of course painful for the authors, but I don't think this makes it unethical. Say, you increase the level of attention given to every paper; that may lead to accepting a rare good paper with an unconventional author at the cost of wasting thousands of hours of expert time proofreading junk.
What you could do about it as an author is to **submit the paper to an editor with research interests and expertise directly in the area of the paper**. Editors will typically read the title and abstract of the papers they receive, and if it's in "their" area, they will have their own opinion of the paper's potential.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: There are at least two different ways to interpret your question.
>
> Would editors of prestigious journals reject a paper because it is a single-author paper written by a new author?
>
>
>
Absolutely not. Any competent editor (and prestigious journals can get competent editors) will try to assess the paper based on its contents, and send it out for review (or a pre-review check) if warranted. Of course the reviewers may be influenced by the authorship, though they should not be. Reviewers are rather more of a mixed bag than editors, and some of them may unfortunately not be competent. There is not much that can be done about this, other than editors avoiding reviewers who have previously given them low-quality reviews.
>
> Is a single-author paper written by a new author and submitted to a prestigious journal more likely to be rejected than a multiple-author paper with at least one experienced author submitted to the same journal?
>
>
>
Yes, I think this is definitely the case. This is simply because the experienced author(s) will have a better idea of how good their work is and what journal to choose for it. They will also be able to write the paper in such a way as to make it clear how good it is, which is a skill that new authors sometimes lack. It is very important as a new author to at least get someone experienced and close to the topic to read a draft and comment on the writing and journal choice before submission. (This person would not become an author, but would normally be thanked in the acknowledgements.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/28
| 846
| 3,536
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going back to grad school and considering getting a PhD, but even though I got top grades and my professors usually have a great connection with me during classes because I am engaged and ask a lot of questions and get good grades, I am not good at building lasting relationships.
Do people keep in touch with professors after leaving? Do they get a letter of recommendation as soon as they graduate? Do they have to nurture the relationship for years and then fall back on it to get the reference? How do people get these letters of reference?
Forgive me that I don't understand how this works but I know this will be a requirement to get into top universities for a PhD program, so I better start doing it in my Master's program, because I didn't do it for my undergraduate.
I am very open to any advice, even if it seems elementary or obvious to you, because what you may think is obvious, I may not know, so I am very open to feedback. I'm not great with building relationships but I am willing to learn and grow.
How do I go about doing these letters of recommendation?<issue_comment>username_1: PhD programs are very different from all the coursework you've done as an undergraduate and before (this recent answer posted here includes a nice depiction: <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/195669/63475>). The center of a PhD program is *research*, so for applications to PhD program you want to show *potential in research*, specifically.
By far the best way to do this is to *get experience doing research* - for that experience, you will need a mentor/mentors, and those are the best people to write letters of recommendation for you. It's not about "learningaddict got a good grade in my course", though in a pinch that may be sufficient, and if you need 3-4 letters, it's likely at least one or two will be of that type.
Of course, the easiest thing to do then would be to apply directly for PhD programs while you are close to finishing your masters degree. If your eventual goal is a PhD, there are really no academic reasons to wait. If you have other personal reasons to wait, then yes, you will need to maintain these connections a bit, but I think it's far easier for someone to just remember you when you've worked closely with them on a research project rather than simply being another head in their class.
I'd also recommend *discussing your future plans* with people you want to eventually write letters for you, and letting them know you plan to ask for a letter in the future, even if you don't plan to apply right away. You can even share with them *exactly the question you've asked here* - don't forget that these are people with a job that includes mentoring you. They may have their own advice for you, or they may choose on their own to pre-write a letter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I was lucky to meet my first mentor when I was 18. Because we shared similar substantive interests, he molded me into a statistician. If you seek a PhD, you should do the same. Seek out a mentor to collaborate with. Do research with them. Learn what academia at the higher levels is like. Don't be afraid to email people and speak with them. You will be surprised how far an email can take you. In this business, networking is invaluable, even compared to your grades in some ways. So, getting experience as a researcher is the main thing you should focus on. Most masters programs offer a thesis, just for this exact purpose. So hone your skills while you can.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/28
| 619
| 2,497
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a lawyer/practitioner (not in academia) and have a law review article of legal scholarship. The article was originally a joint venture with someone who left and abandoned the project, but did contribute to the overall thesis and drafted maybe 10-20%.
My question is how to deal with authorship. If this were in an scientific field, I think the person would be considered second author. But legal scholarship rarely has multiple authors and anything with a second author typically implies roughly equivalent contributions.
What’s the appropriate level of recognition? My name & their name both? My name only and a footnote recognizing their contributions? My name and their name with an asterix indicating they did less work?
The person in question does not care at all, has left the field, and has given their blessing to take their name off entirely. But I want to do something that feels fair to us both. Thanks for any suggestions!<issue_comment>username_1: I see 3 issues:
1. How is it customarily solved? I don't know in law, but I know that in my own field (Biology) there is no consensus. It ranges from "only people who have made a substantial contribution should be listed" to "anybody who walked by the lab while the paper was being written" to "anybody willing to write me in as an author later" (see [publication cartels](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270618).)
2. What is the right thing to do? This is a judgement call. You have said that the other author has moved on and does not care, and that his contribution was minimal (10-20%). My opinion is that the right thing to do is not to include them.
3. What do you want to do? I tend to be generous with authorship, short of including people who have not contributed or joining a publication cartel. It also helps me sleep at night to know I've done something to pay back those who have helped me, and 10% is well above my threshold for feeling thankful. So if I were in your shoes, I would include them as co-author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the standard is one author and you can be the only author and the other person doesn't care but you want to be fair you can be the sole author but remark "thanks to \_\_\_\_ for work on parts a,b,c" somewhere in the paper and satisfy all parties. There'll only be one author, the other person will think you're nice but also thankful you didn't bother them, you will have a clear conscious.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/29
| 922
| 3,732
|
<issue_start>username_0: This thing happens in the USA. I am working as a R&D research engineer in the industry, not academia.
Recently, our group recruited a research scientist, and we finally made an offer to a guy. In this guy's resume, he claimed his title/position as "Senior Research Associate" for his previous job in a university. However, after doing the background check, we found this guy's real title for his previous job is "Postdoc." His salary is a public record, and it showed us his salary is a regular salary for the Postdoc in the USA
The background team pointed this out to us. So I wonder if this title problem is a big deal? To our job review team, we don't really care about the title, and "Postdoc" or "Research Associate" are same to us, we care about applicants' research experience and competence.
I don't wanna make people feel that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. But in my opinion, I believe resume should be accurate and honest for all the experience and titles, and sometimes a resume is even considered a legal document. I wonder how the community think of this<issue_comment>username_1: The applicant is using the correct, formal term for his last position. Whereever the "Postdoc [sic] researcher" title comes from, it is casual slang. I suspect it's from a clueless PI's website, who doesn't understand the academic structure below lecturer/ ass't professor, which many PI's don't.
There are essentially three "ranks" for non-tenured academic staff:
1. Research Assistant
2. Research Associate
3. Research Fellow
Sometimes these have a modifier before them. Formally, a Ph.D. student's job title is "(Postgraduate) Research Assistant," for example.
A Research Assistant does not, by definition, have a Ph.D. It covers the whole gamut upto "Postdocs" who have yet to formally receive their Ph.D. A Research Associate is someone who has formally received a Ph.D. Finally, a Research Fellow is essentially an independent researcher, without a teaching post.
A "postdoc" is essentially a funding mechanism rather than a real job title.
A job title of "Senior Research Associate" is very clear to me. It is the correct title for someone who, (a) has a Ph.D., (b) has worked in the research group of someone else for more than 2-3 years but (c) did not get their own major grant to give them independence.
Whoever gave a title of "Postdoc Researcher" should be slapped on the wrist for being sloppy and your new hire is correct.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: The terms "Postdoc" and "Research Associate" are essentially used interchangeably in the natural sciences. Postdoc has come to mean any research position after PhD but before having full formal independence as a researcher. With very few exceptions Postdocs in the natural sciences do research associated with a principal investigator.
Whether the use of senior or not is justified depends on the actual role they played. Assuming they had been in the lab for a while they likely did play a more senior role than more junior postdocs. (But even if they had been there only for a year it could be that due to their previous experience they played a more senior role.) The distinction between senior and junior is not clear-cut / formally defined and not worth putting under a microscope.
In general, for postdoctoral researchers, job titles in academia mean very little, are used interchangeably, and often not even formalized (e.g., it is not unusual for postdocs to not even have a formal contract).
Your concern is thus unfounded. This is not even a molehill to make into a mountain. There essentially is no difference between calling yourself a "Postdoc" and "Research Associate" within academia.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/29
| 764
| 3,406
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a PhD in Materials Science and have published quite a bit (10 papers in >4 Impact factor journals) on surface engineering topics.
I have left academia 2 years ago and have been working as a scientific editor at a major publishing companies for over a year now. I was a managing editor there and was involved with rejecting out of scope papers for a 5 IF journal on batteries/super capacitors.
Now, I have been offered a permanent position of in-house scientific editor at another prominent publishing company for a journal where 90% of the papers will be on batteries, energy devices and nanomaterials. I will be working along with external editorial board and have the responsibility of rejecting, sending out for review and accepting articles.
It would be a high (>8) impact factor journal with high reputation. Though I have taken some courses during my grad school on the topics and have some basic fundamental understanding, I do not have any research experience on these topics. I just have one coauthored paper in a very adjacent field (corrosion studies).
Now, as my role would involve sending out papers for peer review and making the final editorial decisions,
do you think it is possible to be a good scientific editor for a field you do not have research experience in? Any suggestions to perform decently on the job?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on what you kind of editorial work you are doing. Your description is vague enough that there are different possible interpretations of your responsibilities.
It's true that you will inevitably run into problems which you have not the faintest idea how to solve. Coursework helps, but it's not sufficient. An example of such an issue is if the reviewer says do X, the authors say they won't do X because [reasons], and the reviewer is not happy. You won't be able to arbitrate without at least some subject expertise.
On the other hand, you have described the position as "a permanent position of in-house scientific editor at a major publishing company". With few exceptions, most journals have an editorial board that are not full-time in-house employees, and *they* will make the actual tough decisions like the one described above. The problems you will have to solve are much simpler (e.g. if Y reviewer is a suitable person to review Z paper, is Z review constructive or should you find another reviewer, etc.). Therefore, chances are you can do the job. You won't be the best imaginable editor, but you can do it better than most. If my experience in publishing is anything to go by as well, chances are you can do it much better than the other journal staff, as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the position is something like "managing editor" where the primary responsibility is dealing with editors, rather than authors and reviewers, then probably yes. But that assumes some managing ability.
However, if you are on the "front lines", so to speak, then you need enough experience and knowledge in the field to be able to quickly recognize nonsense and poor-work. Otherwise your relationship with reviewers won't be very good as you will pass them too much dreck.
But, that doesn't mean research experience, necessarily, and the required knowledge could come with some practice over a period of time.
A bit risky, perhaps, if you give up other things to do this.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/29
| 910
| 3,773
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some universities in Malaysia have research-mode Ph.D. programs in Mathematics. Since Covid 19, they have allowed students to work online, especially if the student is performing well. I am a math instructor in my own country and also registered in a Ph.D. program in Malaysia. This is my first year, and I published 5 research papers in ISI Q1 journals, three of the journals are reputed in my field.
I can finish my Ph.D. within two years(minimum requirement period). But I am wondering, would my Ph.D. be acceptable for assistant professor jobs? Or Postdoc positions?
P.S: The issue is that I cannot leave my current job due to financial reasons.<issue_comment>username_1: There is some risk, but you choose among the options you have, not the ones you wish you had.
In math, ideally, an online doctorate could be fully valid and if from a highly reputed institution, it probably, but not necessarily, is.
You will still, however, face skepticism about the degree at the current time when the concept is so new. Not everyone will think of it as equal to a traditional degree and you will need to be aware of that in applying for positions.
However, as is always true, if your dissertation makes a solid contribution to the field and you clearly show the necessary characteristics for the jobs you seek, you can overcome a lot of that skepticism.
Nothing guaranteed, but nothing impossible.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> published 5 research papers in ISI Q1 journals, three of the journals are reputed in my field
>
>
>
Your high rated publications (depending on how highly rated they are) would count, post your doctorate study.
>
> would my Ph.D. be acceptable for assistant professor jobs? Or Postdoc positions?
>
>
>
Given your publications and possibilities of further publications, you stand a good chance.
Some might be sceptical about ***online*** doctorate. Rightly so for good reasons. In your case, you can address this easily with cover letter.
Some consider the research environment on completed their doctorate in. Some factor in the university standing.
Consideration varies from country to country, institution to institution, discipline to discipline.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As others mentioned, location is important. In the comments you asked specifically about the United States. If you want an assistant professorship in the United States, you need a PhD that is familiar to hiring committees in the United States. Most of the faculty on those committees cannot name a single university in Malaysia or a single university that offers online PhDs. As a result, they will not know anything about your PhD.
Also, nearly all new assistant professors in math have several years of experience after their PhDs.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Online PhDs in mathematics are as valid as the institution that confers the degree.
The question is rather how competitive or 'valid' a university in Malaysia is from the point of view of your future employers. I know that European and North American institutions might have biases when it comes to degrees from outside of North America and Europe (+Japan, South Korea, and certain Chinese universities).
Frankly, whether your PhD is 'online' or classical won't really matter from the perspective of your future employer. What matters is their opinion about your university. In academia, they will care about your research and your personal connections too.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Yes. What really matters is the quality of your work and your own natural aptitude for math. If you're not good enough to stand out amongst the crowd, then it really doesn't matter where you went to school.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/30
| 1,006
| 4,050
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am asking the question in the context of the ongoing Russo-Ukraine war.
Is it safe to publish research papers in cooperation with Russian academics from Russia in terms of future careers?
I mean, would there be any chance of marginalization of someone because his/her paper has a co-author who is a Russian living in Russia?<issue_comment>username_1: Science and scientist have traditionally held themselves as being above nationality. If you merely work with someone from Russia, then any objections to it would be close-minded and contrary to tradition. Even during the cold war, collaboration was difficult but not frowned upon.
Now, I for instance would object to any collaboration with Russians that fosters directly or indirectly the war effort, but recognize your right to come to a different conclusion.
However, nobody can give you a guarantee. We live in strange times, where for example the [*Iris* data set](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_flower_data_set) is not supposed to be used any more because Sir [Ronald Fisher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher) had some then common, but now repugnant views.
So, take this as a vote from someone in academia that you should be safe and let's see what others think.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There was a [vote](https://www.science.org/content/article/world-s-largest-particle-physics-lab-suspends-political-ties-russia) among scientists in the ATLAS cooperation at CERN, with the result that they will keep working together with Russian individual researchers, but cut all ties with the major Russian institutes and funding agencies. This might not reflect the sentiment in other parts of the scientific community, but it gives you a sample from a relatively large group.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: The problem with "is it safe" questions on the open internet is that there is a bias against answering "yes". Give an ominous warning and you sound smart; give a false assurance and you get egg on your head because someone somewhere will run into trouble.
I have never seen any pushback against collaboration with Russian academics **in pure science**, and I would consider such pushback closeminded and ill-advised. This does not mean that it does not exist, since academics can be closeminded and ill-advised, but then again you might not want to rely on the opinions of such people in your career anyway.
I am much more loathe to collaborate with Russian **institutions**, particularly when it comes to ones with official ties (e.g., math contests) or odious administrators (at this point, basically any Russian university). The "lending credibility" effect can be significant here, and even if it is not, by strengthening these institutions, you are reducing the push-factor for Russian students and researchers to emigrate, which is not an effect I would want to have.
In **applied** project with realistic military applications, I would not collaborate with anyone physically in Russia period. How far these "military applications" reach is a tricky question (networking? coding theory? video compression?), and some amount of eyeballing will be necessary at the boundaries.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Depending on the journal it may not be possible to publish an article if one of the authors is affiliated with a Russian university. Acta Physica Polonica B (a fairly well-known physics journal) has the following message on its website:
*In protest against the invasion of Russia (with the support of Belarus) on an independent and sovereign territory and the people of Ukraine, on March 1, 2022 Poland suspended scientific collaboration with the Russian Federation. Following the decision of the Rector of the Jagiellonian University, which suspends cooperation with Russian universities and research centers, **Acta Physica Polonica B stops publishing articles by authors with affiliation to institutions from the Russian Federation and also from the Republic of Belarus**.*
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2023/04/30
| 478
| 1,954
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student. I will submit my thesis and then I will have 6-7 months until my defense. I completed all my work and I still have funding.
I want to ask a professor whose research I admire to work in their lab for those 6 months. However, I will not have anything to study. I don't know if this is a polite, logical thing to ask. How can I ask them?<issue_comment>username_1: You can start by
* Reading their recent papers, and try to come up with interesting questions or projects you would like to work on in their lab.
* Meet their PhD students and postdocs in conferences and discuss what they are working on and what kind of open and interesting problems are there related to their work.
Then you can either meet them in person at a conference and ask for a brief discussion,
or cold-email them with your CV and a brief note on the questions you would like to address with your work in their lab, and an invitation for a quick online call. The first option is more probable to yield an answer than the second one.
In the case you current advisor, or some professor you know has contacts with that PI, you can ask them to bring you in contact.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: To add to the excellent answer by @can'tstopmenow, assuming that "working with him" does not include you moving countries or cities, I would make it clear in the letter that you are not looking to be paid, given supplies, help move (e.g. find a place to live, visas, etc.)
Not that this is the only criterion, but you have to answer the question from the professor's side, the "what's in it for me?" question. Not having a project to work on might be a good selling point, because you could offer to help with anything they need. So maybe your initial overture could start by asking how you can help *them*.
BTW, I think that the whole scheme is a great idea: you expand your network, and expose yourself to new ideas.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/04/30
| 250
| 1,097
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in contact with another researcher and want to share the direction of my current research for a possible opportunity. Would it be okay to share just the abstract and author list of my article with them. The article is still under review and not accepted/published yet.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, until you sign away your copyright after acceptance for publication, the article (in full) is yours and your co-authors.
And, even after you sign away the copyright, you normally get back a license that would permit such local sharing in any case - especially for collaboration purposes.
As user Snijderfrey notes in a comment it would be proper to get agreement from co-authors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: What is copyrighted is the concrete work. Ideas as such aren't copyrightable. You are free to share your insights with others.
In any case, publication is precisely to disseminate ideas, I'd be very surprised if the journal objects to sharing e.g. preliminary versions or preprints (but look up their policies or ask if in any doubt).
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/30
| 1,098
| 4,670
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing my thesis for political science in a Masters programme. I found another thesis that is extremely similar to mine, where I could literally use its literature review.
So, I wanted to ask if that would be considered plagiarism: if I followed and cited the same references the author mentioned, but of course with my own words through paraphrasing, would that be admissable?
As it is the literature review, and I am going to refer to all the papers he mentioned, would that be considered plagiarism? I aim to follow the same structure for the literature review as well.<issue_comment>username_1: For purposes of plagiarism, the work and effort of collecting and presenting other sources counts as an intellectual effort. That compilation constitutes an *idea*; the structure also constitutes an idea. Review articles are basically just an extended literature review, and these are publishable papers in their own right.
Therefore, if you want to reuse that compilation of sources, you would need to cite both the secondary source that compiled the work as well as the original papers to not be credibly accused of plagiarism. That doesn't mean you need to seek out and cite every other paper that has cited some combination of original work that you use, but if you *use a secondary source to identify what other sources to cite*, it should be cited.
Now, as for assessing your thesis, even if you do not plagiarize (because you cite properly), your thesis may not be deemed sufficiently original if you derive such an important part of it entirely from someone else. Basically you have not shown that you can competently arrange this information yourself, so you may not be seen as having "passed" the thesis assignment.
I'd recommend changing your viewpoint on the importance of literature review; you seem to consider it a boring secondary task but it's actually a central part of research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: [Not everyone](https://andrewpwheeler.com/2020/12/16/lit-reviews-are-almost-functionally-worthless/) agrees with me on this, but I don't care: literature reviews can be kind of silly artifacts that we hang on to in many disciplines. I *generally* think they can be wastes of space, when a few will placed and described citations with relevant discussion will usually do. When I'm refereeing for top journals, I don't really care who you cite, I'm reading for the methods, coherence of the paper, discussion, and other things.
To be clear, I'm *not* saying you should never cite work related to your own. It's just not *usually* necessary to dedicate an entire section of your paper to do this. Where am I going with this?
Make your lit review short. You and another thesis did very similar work? Okay great! Cite their thesis if you'd wish, and discuss the relevant work from the citations you (likely) were going to use anyways. And then?
Move on to better things. The more important things. [My thesis](https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/political_science_theses/85/) had a very very very short lit review, also for political science incidentally. Why was it short? I had other and more important things to discuss than what previous papers hypothesized, and anything beyond what I put would simply have been a waste of space.
My advice to you, is to hit the high points. Talk about **only** the literature that is quintessential to your question, methods, or subject. That way, you'll be more concise, you won't simply repeat another person who summarized the information well, and then you can get to what you should be doing anyways: talk about why *your* paper is unique, interesting, or of relevant to the broader field. That's what you should be focusing on, why your own original work matters. Other work may be necessary to this, but it won't be enough to convince them why your work pushes the proverbial envelope.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: You should definitely cite the previous thesis, and credit as appropriate the pieces of literature review you use. But you need to do your own work, get the original sources cited, check if anything newer has been published, if other points of view were left out. The purpose of doing a literature review is to check what has been done, what problems are open, learn applicable (or not) techniques to approach the problem.
You are left to either dig deeper than the other work or veer into a (slightly) different direction to make overlap less. Perhaps try a new approach to the same basic data, collect more data and see if the original approach still fits, see if the same approach is applicable in other, similar, cases.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/04/30
| 908
| 3,684
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had a "bad grade" in a class in my 4th year of undergraduate studies.
The problem is that this class is crucial for the graduate program I intend to pursue. I got a 91%, which I know is a really good grade, but I hoped to get more since I want to do a Master's in Photonics or Electromagnetics. I think that the reason why I got this grade is that one family member passed away a week before my exam and I didn't have the energy or the will to study at that moment.
Do you think that this grade can influence my graduate admission chances?<issue_comment>username_1: If I were on the graduate admissions committee and saw a strong application my answer to
>
> Do you think that this grade can influence my graduate admission
> chances?
>
>
>
would be "probably not".
For someone else the answer might be "yes" but the real question is not "whether?" but "how much?". That no one can say. It depends on too many other factors.
So go ahead and write the best application you can. Whether you fail or succeed probably won't depend on this single factor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You write on a comment that you made your undergrad studies in a different country to the one you want to pursue graduate studies. I am also doing my undergrad in Latin America and I have a few friends here that also applied to graduate schools in the US. From their experiences, I can tell you that when an international student applies to grad school, the members of the committee pay attention if you have a bad academic record (like dropped classes or a GPA below 3.0), but good grades are not as important as you think. It's really hard to assess the knowledge and capabilities of a student based on grades given by professors from another country (let alone from another culture!).
I have a great GPA on my home country, but I cannot compare it with the GPA of a Cambridge student. There's not point of comparison, since the things I needed to achieve in order to maintain that GPA are, in some cases, easier than the ones the Cambridge student needed to complete in order to have that same GPA. I am fully aware of that, and **it really sucks**, because even if I studied hard and I know how to apply the knowledge I struggled to get, my degree is not as valuable as a Harvard degree, or an MIT degree. I can tell you that I had quite demanding and challenging courses, and I'm proud of the grades I got, but I also had a few courses that were pure garbage:) and everybody gets good grades on them! I cannot show how "good" I am just with my grades, since the ruler my professors used to "measure me" is not the same ruler used to measure the other international students (or local students).
If you don't come from a renowned Latin America college (for example, IMPA or UNAM), you will have a hard time finding your way to a good graduate program in the US or the UE. You will improve your chances if you can find a way to engage in undergraduate research programs, or if you have good performance in academic activities. You can also try to find scholarships addressed specifically for Latino students. I cannot give you more advice because I don't know if you want to apply for research programs or more practical programs.
I don't say those things to bring you down, but in real life the sweat and tears we shed during our undergrad journey are not as valuable as those from our fellow students coming from renowned universities:) and our grades (even if we struggled to get good ones) are not as important. **That sucks but that's life**.
Good luck with your future endeavors, I wish you luck in your admission process! Keep going!
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/04/30
| 1,178
| 4,539
|
<issue_start>username_0: For context, I'm currently an I.T. bachelor's student who has an interest in mathematics and is planning for higher education in math. After doing some research online, I realised that a PhD isn't something you can tick off a checklist for your education and that I could do a master's before deciding whether or not I should go for a PhD.
1. What's the difference between MAst and MSc?
I noticed some universities don't offer an MSc and that Oxford/Cambridge offers an MAst degree, how do the two compare? There is also MPhil I came across which is leans towards the research side.
2. If I chose MPhil but didn't go for a PhD, how far can I go with the degree?
This of course means in the field of mathematics and not going back to a corporate IT job.
Or alternatively should I just keep math as a hobby and continue with a career in IT?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. The Maths Institute at Oxford doesn't [offer](https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/mpls/mathematics) MASt degrees and Cambridge doesn't give MSc's at all, they only [seem to grant](https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/postgrad) MASt's to external applicants who complete Part 3 of the Tripos without doing the rest of a Cambridge undergrad. At both of these universities these courses are taught Masters degrees.
They are the same in that they are taught programs, i.e., require a significant component of taking classes and passing exams. In my experience the precise letters after the M (Phil/Sc/ASt/etc.) don't really give great information at all about the content. You need to look at the details for each program instead.
The taught MSc's are nontrivial feeders into PhD work. As an anecdote: I got a taught MSc at Oxford, the program had a dissertation as a requirement in addition to taking courses, and I ended up with a DPhil offer there. Didn't manage to find the funding, so the PhD's from somewhere else.
2. Their Masters by research programs like the MPhil have minimal taught components. That is to say that the only requirements are that you write a thesis, and you're not expected to take courses. I never met anyone doing these degrees or who has done one while I was there or since. They're so odd that Oxford's page for their version notes:
>
> It is not intended as a first step towards a DPhil, but rather as an alternative to a DPhil. Few students opt to apply for the MSc by Research unless there are limitations on the time or funding available.
>
>
>
I simply can't recommend these types of degrees. In the US they're usually only given to students who start a PhD but don't finish all requirements for whatever reason.
If you don't have an undergraduate background in math or some equivalent experience I'm not sure that anywhere reputable would even take you on such a degree. But even if you do, suppose you finish a research masters. You've taken few advanced courses, and your main accomplishment is writing a "PhD lite" thesis over the course of 2 years.
A. If you decide not to continue on to a PhD, industry employers will be a lot less interested in a thesis than if you had just taken more advanced classes and built up a relevant skill set for their needs.
B. If you try to continue on to a PhD, in the best case you can't really extend your Masters thesis to accomplish that since it's already published. You're likely to have already sunk 2 years into the Masters and need to do another 3-4 on something different for a PhD.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I could do a master's before deciding whether or not I should go for a PhD.
>
>
>
If PhD is not a certainty for you, and you're at the fence of academia and industry, the MAst (M.A.S., MAS, Master of Advanced Studies) might be just right for you. Many institutions are projecting MAst as an offering focused on the needs of professionals rather than academics! For instance, UC San Diego 'advertise' it as a professional (terminal) degree!
Typically, MAst, is conceived/geared towards a post-graduate **professional** degree. It's not uncommon to go through series of a set of coordinated coursework carefully orchestrated in such a way to culminate to projects or papers rather than research treatise.
In Spain, there's the notion that MAst is offered as the *"Diploma de Estudios Avanzados"*. Whether the DEA scale through as higher qualification that MPhil or MS is left to be seen in coming years.
If you're looking at the UK, apart from Cambridge, for mathematics, you also have Warwick.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/04/30
| 1,641
| 6,566
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a master's thesis in engineering. It is quite literature-heavy, and I'm using Zotero with BibTeX to manage my references. For the most part, I use [Zotero's browser extension](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/zotero-connector/ekhagklcjbdpajgpjgmbionohlpdbjgc) to create Zotero entries, but when necessary (e.g. for PDFs that were only published on a university server), I also create some from scratch. Sometimes, I want to cite websites of software tools without a publication. I could gather as much information as possible from those websites, but since these references are really only made in passing, I find that giving the reader a URL suffices. Also, my sources list is quite long already, so I try to avoid going out of my way to add extra references just for the sake of mentioning a single name. So, a URL it is.
What **is** and what **ought be** the best practice to include such a naked URL into a master's thesis, or even a research paper? There are essentially three possible ways to do this:
1. Footnote with the link (e.g. using `\url{ }` from `hyperref`): ugly, but visible to people who print the work on physical paper -- and lose the digital version, so that the only way to visit the URL is copying it letter by letter manually. ***Edit:** for non-homepages, I am using [archive.org](https://archive.org/) to prevent link rot, which is academically good, but the URLs are ridiculously unaesthetic.*
2. Embedded hyperlink in the text (with an unobtrusive colour to indicate the text is clickable). Looks neat, but not accessible in print. This is what I'm currently doing.
3. Have a list of raw URLs as a subsection of my sources list, and use some LaTeX magic to annotate and jump to the correct link from the text.
Worth mentioning: our department has 1. no standard citation style and 2. stopped requiring physical thesis prints since 2020, hence why 1. I have the freedom to choose the citation style and 2. I am embracing hyperlinks currently. My thesis is in NLP, so my own style most closely resembles that of the ACL (see [this paper](https://aclanthology.org/2021.iwslt-1.31.pdf) as an example), but this is not a hard constraint.
I am asking for an **ought** as well because of this freedom. If the standard is (1), but there are better arguments for (2), then I prefer (2).
---
Note: I am *not* asking [how to cite a website](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8098/how-should-i-cite-a-website-url). As explained above, I've made up my mind on this: I want to only cite a URL, not have a whole BibTeX entry for it. The question is how/where to do the citation.<issue_comment>username_1: I would put real links in an appendix, with refs that jump there in the online version but are simply text in the hard copy. That's [xxx] or [n] in the body and [\url{...}] in the appendix. That does not call for much LaTeX magic. Ask at tex SE for help if you need it.
Be sure to annotate links with a "last visited" date.
The ability to jump back to the text after viewing a reference in the appendix would be nice. That does call for a little magic.
I find footnotes distracting. Avoid them unless your discipline embraces them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Ultimately, this question can only be answered by your future reader(s), which presumably will be your parents and the supervising professor (and maybe a committee), with an off-chance of others if you wrote a high impact thesis. I would not worry about your parents, but I would worry about your supervisor and your MS committee. This will also depend on whether they like to use an electronic copy or a printed one. (I prefer a printed one because it is easier to annotate.)
Citations in academic texts are about honesty (attributing other's results to them) and traceability. In the printed world, it was customary to cite editions and pages in editions so that a reader could follow up on the citation. This way, I (the reader) can look-up your (the author) resource and check whether you used it correctly, not so much to police you but to assure myself that you applied the resource correctly or represented the cited author's position correctly.
Electronic resources introduced an element of uncertainty as resources could vanish or move overnight or even be changed. The academic community dealt with this problem by using analogy. So, we used these "retrieved on a certain date" and we might now be starting to use
the internet-archive to give more permanence to these resources.
Any citation-style that deals with these additional problems of electronic resources is fine in my opinion and would be judged by aesthetic criteria. But my opinion does not matter all that much to you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One option you could consider is using [endnotes](https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/56145/128923) instead of footnotes. This would avoid shortening the text on the page and diverting reader attention, while preserving the URLs for readers of printouts. It is essentially the same idea as [using an appendix](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/195804/17254) for the URLs, but more granular.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: **How to present links**
My personal favourite technique for displaying hyperlinks is to use hyperref with options:
```
\hypersetup{%
colorlinks=false,% hyperlinks will be black
linkbordercolor=red,% hyperlink borders will be red
pdfborderstyle={/S/U/W 1}% border style will be underline of width 1pt
}
```
This produces a single coloured underline which is not visible in print. This avoids the typical ugly boxes. I recommend using different colours for links within the document and links to websites. Use a monospaced font for URLs!
**Where to put links**
I cannot see a compelling reason not to treat these URLs as you would any other reference. This is the simple and conventional approach. You say your reference list is already long---so a few more entries wouldn't make much difference. There are other techniques available to deal with a long reference list such as having a separate list for each section, using author-date referencing to reduce the need for the reader to visit the reference list, or otherwise splitting references into several lists.
Additionally, if you use the reference list rather than an inline URL, you would have the space to include two URLs---one being the official URL and the other being the archive.org URL. I find it odd to only provide the archive.org URL if the website is still active.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/01
| 2,383
| 9,828
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m not sure this is the right place for this, but I’m in a bit of a dilemma about next steps for my career and just wanted to outline my thinking in case anyone else has been in this position and has a bit of insight.
The crux of the matter is that I’m currently a entry-level software engineer at a big tech company trying to figure out how to get more involved with theoretical computer science/ applied math research and whether I should apply for grad school (PhD, masters, etc).
Some background: I’m a recent computer science bachelors graduate (class of 2022). Most of the classes I took in undergrad (after the necessary reqs) were theoretical CS flavored (advanced algorithms, cryptography, computational complexity, etc) along with an occasional math course (modern algebra, combinatorics). I joined my current big tech company back in August/September as a software engineer, primarily working on machine learning infrastructure. I’ve found the work reasonably interesting at times and have definitely been learning a lot about how to be a better engineer.
That being said, I don’t think this work is the right fit for me interest-wise in the medium/long-ish term. If I had no work-related obligations, I would be spending nearly all of my time exploring deep learning theory related research. To be explicit, this is about formulating a more well-understood theory of deep learning, potentially with concrete guarantees (as opposed to more experimental deep learning research that seems to be all the rage these days). Indeed, this is what I’m doing right now: nearly every morning I get up and spend a couple hours before work exploring recent literature, playing around with half-baked ideas, working through a textbook, etc. My weekends are almost entirely dominated by this. That being said, I could plausibly see myself getting interested in another theory-related topic: though the further it gets from theory work, the less likely I am to stay interested in it.
The main bottleneck I’m currently having is that I’m not able to spend as much time as I’d like to do research/learn. Part of the problem is that work often gets busy, but even on relatively easier weeks I still wish that I had even more free time to work on research/learning.
One important thing to note is that I have not trained extensively as a researcher. I have worked in a few research labs in undergrad (mostly experimental machine learning but also with a theoretical computer science professor, though we never got particularly far). I am skeptical about my current ability to perform well as a theoretical researcher without some extensive mentorship. I also expect that my math background is weak relative to most theory researchers. I can’t say for sure if research will interest me long-term, but I’m willing to test this for the next couple of years. I am fairly confident in my ability to return to a software engineering position if things don’t work out though.
At this point, I’m considering what my options might be for both the short and long term.
1. Apply for a Phd program directly potentially with options of both industry or academic careers (and if push comes to shove, returning to become a software engineer again afterwards).
2. Apply for a masters and do as much research as I can during that time to see if I truly enjoy doing it/ have the ability to do it well to potentially apply for a Phd afterwards.
3. Try and find a way to get myself on a team at my company that is doing work more aligned with what I’m interested in long-term
4. Try and find a way to do research with nearby research labs (reaching out/cold emailing professors, postdocs, phd students, etc)
5. (4a?) Reaching out to previous professors who I worked with to try and continuing doing work with them.
6. Quitting my job and spending as much as my time as possible doing research (while living on savings?)
These options aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
I’d expect that if I went for 1 or 2, I would apply in Fall 2023 with the expectation that I would join in Fall 2024 (which is pretty annoying actually, I’m wondering if there are any opportunities with faster turnaround times).
With respect to 3, the company that I work at has research labs with a good number (>15?) researchers working in areas I would be super excited to work in (as well as many more that I would be generally enthusiastic but slightly less interested in). I did reach out to one of them to see if there could be any opportunity of doing part-time work with them, but the impression I got was that I need to significantly strengthen my math background before being able to contribute, which I felt was fair.
Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble, happy to clarify any details as needed. What am I currently overlooking when thinking about this dilemma? How would others approach this decision-making process?
As a followup question: if I decide to apply for a PhD/master’s program in the next admissions cycle, what are the best things I can do in the next few months to strengthen my application?<issue_comment>username_1: Check the ML- Collective ( <https://mlcollective.org/> ).
They provide an entry point for ML researchers.
Copying from their website:
>
> ML Collective (MLC) is an independent, non-profit organization with a mission to make machine learning (ML) research opportunities, including collaboration and mentorship opportunities accessible and free for all.
> We execute our mission via two broad efforts: (1) community building, with open platforms that allow people to connect and collaborate, governed by recurring events and meetups that provide a structure for growth; and (2) research training, where we adopt a peer-mentoring model: researchers simply come on their own accord and meet on a regular cadence to help move projects forward.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Unless you are exceptional, the best way to get to do theoretical machine learning starts out with getting a Ph.D. Experience in the software field is a big plus in Computer Science, as much theoretical work includes implementation. If you enter a Ph.D. program and are not successful, but not catastrophically so, you will get an M.S. (in the US at least).
Studying on your own is difficult, since these days Machine Learning uses analysis (optimization), linear algebra, statistics, and newly developed Mathematics, among others. The Ph.D. will give you guidance on how much time to spend on each of this.
Working with a university team puts the cart before the horse, as you probably do not have a good base.
Some Ph.D. programs will admit for each quarter / semester.
Finally, a caveat: Many practitioners go through a hard time in the first years of their career and then like the idea of returning to school as in retrospect it seems a lot more fun than it actually was. Make sure to give it some time before you make a decision to know that this does not apply to you. A Ph.D. needs stamina.
On the other hand, while a Ph.D. might be a wash as far as life time earnings are concerned, you get to have more interesting work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I recommend one of the first three options. Better yet: I recommend trying *all* of the first three options and seeing what sticks.
>
> Apply for a Phd program directly potentially with options of both industry or academic careers (and if push comes to shove, returning to become a software engineer again afterwards).
>
>
>
I see very little downside to doing this. If you get in, it may be challenging to give up your job and return to a grad school stipend. But for theoretical research like you describe, a PhD is by far the most logical next step. And applying is not too painful; this will give you a better sense of what your options are.
>
> Apply for a masters and do as much research as I can during that time to see if I truly enjoy doing it/ have the ability to do it well to potentially apply for a Phd afterwards.
>
>
>
If you can't get into a suitable PhD program now, this might be a good alternative. Especially if your company offers tuition reimbursement, and you are able to pursue this without quitting your job. This will let you explore your interest while strengthening your PhD application. You could even apply for both this and PhD programs and see what you get.
>
> Try and find a way to get myself on a team at my company that is doing work more aligned with what I’m interested in long-term...[I asked about this and] the impression I got was that I need to significantly strengthen my math background before being able to contribute.
>
>
>
If your company offers tuition reimbursement, you may be able to pick-and-choose some suitable math classes that will better qualify you to do this sort of work. "Pivoting" in this way is great, since you wouldn't have to take time off to go back to school. But it'd be a little bit unusual to build a theoretical career with only a BS + a few random classes; I suspect you'll eventually need/want at least a master's.
>
> Try and find a way to do research with nearby research labs (reaching out/cold emailing professors, postdocs, phd students, etc)
> (4a?) Reaching out to previous professors who I worked with to try and continuing doing work with them.
>
>
>
Maybe, but what do you have to offer the professor? Free software engineering, maybe, but I don't think this is a long-term solution. It could work in the short term as a way to strengthen your PhD application.
>
> Quitting my job and spending as much as my time as possible doing research (while living on savings?)
>
>
>
Financially risky, and it's hard to make progress without an advisor. And even if you do make progress, it's hard to "sell" it in many cases.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/01
| 1,453
| 6,440
|
<issue_start>username_0: A is a corresponding author for a paper (PhD work) that has been submitted to a journal. I am the main and the first author, while he is the second author. Recently, he has withdrawn a paper after it has been reviewed for 8 months and recently accepted in the journal without notifying me or getting my acceptance because of a personal conflict. He contributed to the paper only through his comments and revisions. I have many emails showing his minimal contribution to the paper and his satisfaction about the work in the paper. The paper is part of my PhD and I am recently graduated. I would like to know if the journal can simply accept his request despite that he contributes to the work only through his revisions. What is your advice?<issue_comment>username_1: It seems unethical to me for your coauthor to remove a publication without the agreement of all authors. The journal won't know there is a problem, however, unless you tell them.
If the other person is/was your advisor then think hard before you make a move, balancing the value of a single paper against the future good will of the other person.
But, ideally, you should be able to contact the editor of the journal and lodge a complaint that the withdrawal was done without your permission (or knowledge, if that is the case).
But it is also difficult, at this stage, to "remove" their contributions, since they are/were more than just words on the page of the paper. Those conversations (oral or written) contributed to the content of the paper. Doing so would seem to require their permission, just as withdrawing it requires (or should) yours. Good luck.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A paper shouldn't be published *without agreement of all the authors*, so any author raising a problem with the paper should be sufficient to halt its progress through the publication process.
The level of contribution is irrelevant here. Either the corresponding author contributed sufficiently to the work to be an author, or they didn't. If they did, they *must* be an author, and must agree for the paper to be published. If they didn't, they *should never have been* an author. Those lines are not always clear and certainly conventions differ between fields/locations/labs, but here it seems like the decision was made that this person should be an author, and it's not appropriate to remove someone as author without their agreement.
The issue here is instead the *reason* for withdrawing. If, for example, the corresponding author, or any other author, recognized some time after the submission that the first author contributed fraudulent data to the manuscript, clearly the right and ethical thing for them to do would be to inform the journal and withdraw the paper.
You only vaguely mention a "personal conflict". If any author requests withdrawal of a paper for reasons unrelated to the content of the paper itself, that seems to be clearly unethical, but can be somewhat difficult to argue without evidence. If you do not know what reason was given to the journal for withdrawal, I'd recommend asking them. Only then will you know how to proceed. In the meantime, I'd consider whether there is anything you can do to mend this relationship. If the paper is good quality, preventing its publication hurts both of you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: You are asking too much of journals.
A journal isn't *obligated* to publish your paper. If it is good, they will *want* to publish it, but it isn't their job to sort out disagreements between authors: If one author does not want the paper to go through the publishing process, then it is not the job of the editors to figure out why that is, who of the authors is right, what the correct approach to resolving the issue is, and so on. From an editorial perspective, the right thing to do is say "Look, folks, this is *your* job to sort out. Come back when you're in agreement and we can reconsider the paper. Until then, take your paper and talk about what you want to do."
The situation is different once the paper is actually published. At that point, journals have to consider that they have an obligation to the public to be an archive of knowledge, and the bar for *retracting* a paper is substantially higher. But before the paper is actually published (even if it has been *accepted*) it's not the editors' job to resolve interpersonal conflicts -- and as a consequence, I don't think that the journal acted unethically in your case.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: This answer builds on username_3's answer, which I agree with.
The journal basically has two options: they can let your co-author withdraw the manuscript, or they refuse. If they let your co-author withdraw the manuscript, then we're basically where you are at.
If they don't let your co-author withdraw the manuscript, then what do they do next? They again have two choices: they can publish, or they can not publish. If they publish, then there's a serious ethical violation - they cannot publish a paper without the consent of all authors. If they don't publish, then the paper basically sits in the system collecting dust, which does not help anyone.
Since all the other options are bad, the journal is left with letting your co-author withdraw the manuscript.
It sounds like you are hoping the journal will arbitrate the authorship dispute. That's not the journal's role. Firstly they don't have a close-up view of every authors' contribution (they can scarcely send someone to visit your university to check), and secondly, they have no authority over the authors. It's something you will have to hash out with the co-author, if necessary involving other members of your department, but not the journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: To add another minor detail to the already good answers: The journal may not have the right to publish.
Usually the journal asks you for waiving your copyright shortly before publication, not during review. When the authors want to retract the paper before, there is nothing the journal can do against it.
Normally then the first author or corresponding author needs to sign the waiver on behalf of the others and your co-author will probably not let you sign it, so the dispute isn't even the problem of the journal anyway as they won't get a legal signature on the waiver and thus will not publish the paper.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/01
| 611
| 2,602
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently immigrated to the USA. I have over 20 years of experience in academia (management and faculty). I have responded to job postings that are online. How can I get my resume and cover letter noticed specially as foreign qualifications and foreign experience is concerned?<issue_comment>username_1: You are already doing the most important thing. Each discipline has slightly different ways of announcing academic vacancies. Also, have you noticed that many academic institutions now advertise vacancies and searches on their website?
(1) Make your visa status very clear on your Resume. While easier than in industry, hiring someone without the equivalence of citizenship / green card is more complicated, requires documentation, and smaller places are not set up to do it well.
(2) Translate your qualifications / job titles yourselves. Most institutions are familiar with foreign qualifications.
(3) Accents are a big worry when hiring someone for teaching. Make sure you include a phone number so that people can hear you talk, if they want to.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I concur with @ThomasSchwarz that the most important thing to note on the application is that you have already immigrated and have a work visa. Without that, your application is most likely to be ignored.
We hire lots of adjuncts in my department. In terms of qualifications, the most important thing is teaching experience. Everybody thinks they can teach, but few can. We are wary of inexperienced teachers, and when forced to hire one (say, no one else applied), we often regret it. So write your CV around your teaching experience: the exact courses you have taught, if those courses had labs, what was your role (assistant, instructor-of-record, etc.), if you wrote the syllabus, selected textbook, etc., the level of the course (1st year, graduate, etc.) The more details, the better.
A little-used secret in getting adjunct positions is that, if you don't get the position, to tell the department chair to put you on the stand-by list. It often happens that departments need adjuncts last-minute, because of sickness, unannounced retirement, professors moving to another university or taking admin positions, other adjuncts dropping out at the last minute, etc. If you made a comprehensive list on your CV of classes you have taught, chances are you'll get a desperate call in late August asking if you can teach a class starting the following week. Once you prove yourself as an effective teacher, you are almost guaranteed to be called the following semesters.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/02
| 1,146
| 4,792
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have come across several works that omitted the citation of relevant related literature, but clearly are camera-ready versions already accepted/presented at a conference or journal.
Of course, due to the familiarity, these missing works may include some of my own papers, but for the sake of this argument, it should be assumed that they may also include the work of others.
What is the general expectation on discussing such omissions with authors?
Is it recommended to reach out to the authors post-publication and point out to them which resources/related literature they "missed" (IMO)?
I also want to add that I presume the omission is usually in good faith, i.e., simply because of the lesser popularity of these methods.
As the answer may depend on the field as well, I am active in the area of Computer Science, which tends to have a comparatively high publication turnover.<issue_comment>username_1: Noone is required to cite works that they do not refer to - if not using certain papers as a reference, they are not (necessarily) omitted, just not used. If there are 20 papers relevant to my research, but I manage to say what I need to say by refering only to 10 of them, the others are not "omitted" but simply not necessary. I don't really understand the problem. If I were contacted by someone asking me to next time cite their paper, I would probably perceive that as spam or coercion.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If by "worth pointing out" you mean feeling good, then yes. If you mean advancing your career, then no.
I would welcome an email pointing out that I missed an important citation. But if the email is from the author saying that I did not cite them, I'd probably be more annoyed than pleased. And if it's some nit-picky stuff, e.g. I only cited 5 of the 6 relevant works, I'd make a mental mark that the person sending the email is a nutcase with too much time.
Authors have wide discretion regarding citation. I don't like ceremonial citation, even though it is very common in my field, and that's my prerogative (ceremonial citation is citing the same old papers because it's what everybody does, regardless if the paper is relevant to the sentence preceding the citation.)
So before you send an email to an author pointing out that they missed an important citation, double check that the citation is germane to the topic, the omission is crucial to the argument being made (ie did not cite a paper countering the argument), and that your motivations are to inform the author rather than recriminate why they didn't cite you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It depends on how you do it. If you say,
>
> I really enjoyed your paper on X. We have some lesser-known related
> work Y (attached). Its cool that you found result Z we found result W which is similar but also differs in some ways. It would be great to have a chat about our common interests.
> Would you be open to a zoom meeting?
>
>
>
That is totally fine. You should not mention that they didn't cite you. Just focus on actually advancing good research. If they like the work that you point out in this email, they will likely cite your papers in the future, now that they are aware of them. You might learn a bunch from each other and get a collaboration going.
If you say
>
> I noticed you missed a citation to my work X in your recent paper. Let me explain...
>
>
>
No, that will be bad for your career. Nothing comes of that. You will look petty, and you could kill a potential collaboration before it ever starts.
Note in my proposed method you aren't pointing out the missed citation explicitly, but you are very very subtly suggesting it. No reasonable receiver of that email would think you were asking for a citation, but it's your best chance of potentially achieving that outcome in the future. If you point it out explicitly it will just annoy them.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: It depends on how relevant the related literature is.
If it's close enough that it might raise questions of priority, for example, a simultaneous invention, the authors certainly should know about it. There's a palette of actions that they might take, for example, updating the preprint version of the paper with a pointer to your paper, and acknowledging your paper in talks.
If it's only "some" related paper that does not affect questions of priority, it's wiser to let it slide. Authors generally don't have an obligation to cite all works that are, to some extent, relevant and related, as it would in many cases lead to an overly long related work discussion with little added benefit, basically a full "survey paper within a paper". Approaching them about it could come off as somewhat desperate.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/02
| 269
| 974
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a scientific paper, how do you call the **small numbers or symbols close to coauthor names** that link to their institutions or e-mail addresses, etc.?
Do you call them *"calls"*....? I don't think *"superindexes"* is the right word here.
What is the standard term for these symbols, in this concrete context?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jxMK4.png)<issue_comment>username_1: I've never heard of a collective noun for the superscript symbols referring to notes. So I think you just call them that: superscript symbols referring to the notes.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The document ["How to use the IEEEtran LaTeX class"](https://ctan.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/IEEEtran/IEEEtran_HOWTO.pdf), by <NAME>, who is the developer of that LaTeX class, calls them *author affiliation symbols* (p. 3, first column).
Nothing fancy.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/02
| 1,510
| 6,295
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a young researcher in economics, I have already published 3 papers in decent journals. Is it sometimes normal to write a paper in which the research question is not clear at all, the motivation is lacking and also you do not understand where the problem in the paper is?
I have heard 2-3 times from various referee reports that my paper lacks motivation and I have already tried hard to handle these issues each time but I cannot see where the problem is. A paper of mine has been rejected several times and now I am questioning my ability to do research.<issue_comment>username_1: It is easy to understand rejections if your research question isn't clearly stated in the paper. The reader wants to know what to expect as an outcome.
It is easy to understand rejections if your motivation for the (well stated) research question isn't clearly stated in the paper. The reader wants to know why this question is important and what it will contribute to the field.
Perhaps you have just neglected to clearly state things that are actually clear in your head. You may be making assumptions about readers and their knowledge and motivations. You can probably correct that.
But if you are writing papers with no clearly defined research question or reason for asking it - doing unfocused research - then you may have a long way to go.
Expository papers are sometimes useful and may be publishable in some venues, but they aren't really research and are usually based on things known in the field, so don't tend to advance it.
Clarity is valued. Necessary.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Just sort of a distinction, the research question being clear is a different idea from it lacking motivation. If I wanna study the impact of the minimum wage on employment, I could say this up front, but the study could still lack motivation if I don't justify why this particular case study is important or cool to learn about.
Even if the justification is small. Like in a current paper, I write at the end of the intro "The goal of this paper is to compare methods for donor selection with respect
to performance based metrics that SC researchers should care about...We believe these algorithms will be of use to policy analysts and statisticians who use SC more broadly."
Of course the meat of that justification follows from the preceding paragraphs, but either way, I say *why* the paper is worthy of econometricians to take note of. Honestly, I do this all the time. I model my writing style off papers that appear in my favorite econometrics journals (not completely of course), but I do seek to emulate that clear, concise, well stated style that top journals have. So I would read that if I were you, if it helps you write and organize better.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it sometimes normal to write a paper in which the research question is not **clear at all** and the motivation lacks?
>
>
>
I'll echo @Bryan-Krause's comment ... *maybe you're just having trouble articulating a question that's already part of your thought process*.
At times, we get stuck in author-block mode. In that mode, we 'see' what we're writing but we are not articulating for the reader. However, in our mind, we believe we are. This is where advisor(s), mentor(s) or four-eye review comes in.
@username_2 gave a fantastic distinction between RQ and motivation in his [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/195886/162770).
Nonetheless, your RQ and/or objective should be evident even if blurry. I say either or both RQ and objective because in some discipline, the paper can have research objectives only, dropping the RQ!
When writing your manuscripts, you might want to consider templating. Essentially, outline the key areas and ideas/thought and develop them afterwards. At that stage (writing), you get an opportunity to reflect on your '***why*** the research.
We get around by giving careful thought to
* *why* is research necessary
* *what* the research is about
* *why* is the manuscript written
* *what* is the manuscript saying (to readers/community)
>
> and also you do not understand where is the problem in the paper?
>
>
>
Philosophically, I'm **critical realism** inclined (though I follow *positivism* or *interpretivism* when seldom need be). Being CR, there's the tendency to **identify** and **describe** iteratively.
Through the understudying process, demi-regularities (or underlying nuances) are brought to the fore. Through **retroduction**, explanatory causal mechanisms relationship are developed.
Unfortunately, you might rejections if reviewers in the journal venues are not exposed to CR or looked at one's manuscript through the lens of the manuscript's methodology.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I think the focus on research questions is misguided and of little use for publishing in high-level economics journals. You can take a look at papers published in top journals and ask yourself what the research question is. Often, it is unclear or irrelevant. Motivation is a broad and misleading term: Your motivation for doing research is irrelevant, the question is what motivates readers and referees. Why should they care?
Many papers have exactly the same research question: How does education impact earnings? Is there gender discrimination in wages? Under what conditions do Bewley models have recursive equilibria? How are financial shocks transmitted to the real sector?
If you want to get a paper addressing one of these questions published, you should convince referees and readers that you actually answer them in a better way; existing answers are unsatisfactory in some way: Previous econometric studies may not be able to control for some other factors, and your does. Other existence theorems require assumptions that rule out many popular function forms; your theorem does not. And so on. You have to connect your work to the existing literature and to how it falls short.
There is an [excellent talk](https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM) on writing academic papers by <NAME>, long-term director of the University of Chicago's writing program, that addresses the topic of what motivates people to read papers and I strongly encourage watching it.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/03
| 1,949
| 7,267
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was wondering if anyone could help me with my current predicament. I have been offered a postdoc position in Germany at TV-L 13.
I completed my PhD in Australia last year but have not done a master’s (in my country a special year is added after a bachelor’s). After receiving my offer, I’ve been told by HR that, because I don’t have a master’s, I will have to start at TV-L 12.
They want me to start at E TV 12 and then once my paperwork gets approved, try and move to the higher TV-L 13 scale but that seems precarious.
I’ve sent my degrees to the German [Central Office for Foreign Education](https://www.kmk.org/zab/central-office-for-foreign-education.html) (“Zentralstelle für ausländisches Bildungswesen”, ZAB) but when I’ve checked the Anabin database it doesn’t seem to recognise my BA (Hons) as similar to a master’s.
Is this standard? Would that mean I would be stuck at this pay for two years? How are the levels (Stufen) negotiated?
The position is for three years. Any general advice would be great as I’m not used to the German pay system and am about to move countries.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a rather common error made by bureaucrats who have no idea of foreign academic careers. If your academic progress is beyond a master’s equivalent (and your job requires it), you get a TV-L 13 payment. A PhD certainly fulfils this, and thus only this degree is relevant.
(Mind that for your level (Stufe), other things may be relevant too.)
Australian doctorates are amongst those which should be recognised most easily:
There is a [specific agreement](https://www.hrk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/hrk/02-Dokumente/02-07-Internationales/02-07-16-Australien/HRK_Abkommen_Australien1993_2000___appendix_2_.pdf) on this and Australian doctorates are amongst the few that automatically allow you to call yourself “Dr.” in Germany ([pertinent law for NRW](https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_bes_text?sg=0&menu=1&bes_id=11587&anw_nr=2), the largest German state).
Details depend on who communicated this to you, but most often this is solved by reminding the HR department that you have a PhD and this is TV-L 13 position.
In the worst case, you have to activate the professor who hired you to tell the bureaucrats to do their job properly.
Remember that your professor usually is on your side in this matter:
They do not benefit from you getting paid less (they can’t use that money elsewhere), they have no close ties with administration, and they are not very keen on losing you over this.
Mind that the difference between TV-L 12 and TV-L 13 is only about 5 % at the same level (Stufe), and if you have a higher level on TV-L 12, you may even get more (see [this table](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarifvertrag_f%C3%BCr_den_%C3%B6ffentlichen_Dienst_der_L%C3%A4nder#Entgelttabelle) of the salaries).
The best way to proceed really depends on the details: What previous experience counts at which group and which level? And would clarifying all of this delay everything make you lose one month of salary?
For example, if they count more than ten years of experience since your bachelor’s for TV-L 12, you end up at 5582 €, whereas entry-level TV-L 13 is only 4074 €.
>
> How are the Stufes negotiated?
>
>
>
This is a bit more tricky as it depends on the details of your work experience and how it is counted. The crucial thing here is work experience in positions that have similar requirements (master’s equivalent) and duties (probably mostly research) as the new position. Here, any research position after your PhD almost certainly counts; everything else is more complicated.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: You have a PhD. That's obviously "more" than a Masters and should count. The problem here (as username_1 also points out) is a cultural issue. The German administrators are familiar with the German system where one does a Bachelors, then a Masters, and then a PhD. So everyone with a PhD also has a (separate) Masters certificate. They're also sticklers for paperwork, so if the paperwork says a Masters is needed, you need the certificate that you've completed a Masters.
The complication arises as you've done your PhD at an institution which doesn't bother with the intermediate Masters designation(\*), and goes directly from Bachelors to PhD. The bureaucrats are confused because the regulations say you need a Masters certificate, and they can't find anything in what you submitted that looks like a Masters certificate.
You're unlikely to convince them that they regulations can be ignored in this case, but what you likely can convince them of is that your PhD certificate also counts as a Masters certificate.
Because in reality, your PhD likely *is* the equivalent of both the Masters and the PhD. In the German system, a Masters is an ~2 year degree where the student takes a combination of classes and research, and writes and defends a thesis at the end. Then the PhD is a ~3-4 year degree where they just do research and write and defend a thesis at the end. (All this is roughly speaking -- different institutions and individuals have variations.)
I'm guessing(\*) your PhD program was a ~5-6 year degree, with a combination of classes and research in the first ~2 years, and then research in the last ~3-4 years, followed by writing and defending a thesis at the end. There was likely also an event (possibly colloquially known as "prelims" or "quals") at about the 2 year mark where you had to write up a document and then defend it. -- Or in other words, it was a single program which combines the features of both the German Masters and the German PhD programs. Additionally (though institutionally dependent), it's also likely that - had you decided that the PhD program wasn't your cup of tea - at about the 2 year mark you would have been able to write up a thesis, defend it, and then leave the program with an official Masters degree (which is further recognition that the first two years of your program is a Masters equivalent).
So what's likely helpful is to convince the bureaucrats that your Australian PhD certificate counts as *both* a PhD *and* a Masters. I'm not sure what documentation you'd need to do this, but that's the angle I'd recommend to take when asking about it: "I'm terribly sorry about the confusing and backward way Australia runs its graduate education program. It says PhD, but it's really equivalent to a combined Masters/PhD program. What documentation do we need to prove that?" -- It may seem like a minor phrasing change, but going from "I don't need a Masters, I have a PhD!" to "My PhD certificate should also meet the requirements for a foreign Masters equivalent." is an important one for regulation-following sticklers. The first one asks them to bend the rules and special case you, but the second accepts the regulations and tries to satisfy them.
(\*) I'm assuming. I'm not overly familiar with the academic system in Australia, and am basing it on the system in the United States.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I was exactly in a similar situation a year ago, but I manged to pull it to tvl-13. I convinced them that my msc-phd is combined together,like the US system. Negotiate strong don't fall on that trap.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/03
| 1,464
| 6,370
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student at a US university. I started last fall. As a university requirement for Ph.D. candidacy, I have to take 3 written exams each lasting for 6 hours. Now, the rule is that the student will choose three professors who will send the reading material for the exam, which consists of a bunch of scientific articles.
The exam is in two weeks and I do not have enough time to go through those articles. I have my coursework and TA responsibilities, moreover, I work in my lab 9-5 every day which is what my advisor wants. Additionally, I am already working on several projects.
I am really scared whether I can manage to pass the written exam or not. Moreover, my professor does not seem to bother about my exams, he only cares about me being in the lab. What can I do in this case? I am trying to read the articles but I have other stuff to do as well, as I mentioned above. I do not want to leave the program as I have worked very hard to be here.
I thought about talking with the program coordinator but it might not be wise as things might get worse at the end.<issue_comment>username_1: You should look at the comments, because they give good answers.
You already let yourself be put into a deep pit. Your advisor is not taking your fears seriously. This might be for all sorts of reasons:
* It is not unknown in Academia that a powerful advisor can tell a qualifying board what to find, along the lines of: "This kid can do research. I want him/her in my group".
* Your advisor was brilliant and never had to worry about passing exams. No way to empathize.
* Your advisor is a good researcher, but in practical life a moron, who cannot accept that some things cannot be controlled.
* Your advisor is ethically challenged, (but maybe still a good person to work with). Your advisor is fine letting you pull of the impossible.
Without knowing the situation better, I at least cannot give you good advice. The standard advice is to go and see your advisor and have a heart to heart talk, starting out with you declaring that you are really scared.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You know you need to pass this exam to continue, so, it seems like you may need to reevaluate your priorities if right now you're considering it a lower priority. Echoing cag51's comment, it's not clear what else you need to succeed besides that. Hopefully you know how to read and understand papers in your field at a level appropriate to your career stage.
Your advisor is probably right in the broader sense of things - coursework during a PhD doesn't matter much for future positions in academia (post docs, professorships), instead your research record will be most important going forward.
However, **you don't get to continue the research part if you don't pass these exams.**
If your advisor isn't aware of that, you might need to explain it to them, they didn't necessarily have the same structure when they were a graduate student. For example, for me the preliminary examination consisted of a paper written on a topic outside the research area plus a thesis proposal; the program tried to encourage timely completion, but in reality many students didn't complete the process until they were several years in the program and nearing graduation. There was very little urgency. In other programs, there may be an exam based off the required coursework where really no extra studying is needed: as long as you've done reasonably well in the courses, which may not be very difficult for most students in the program, the exam is mostly a formality. <NAME> mentioned in a comment that some programs have specific time set aside for qualifying exam prep, free of other coursework and teaching responsibilities. Your advisor may be more familiar with any of these other systems than they are with the system at the institution they work at now. It's even likely that the system is different for different students at the same institution who are part of other programs - maybe your advisor has mentored these students and doesn't have a full picture of the requirements you face.
Now, if you had been given these preparation materials many months ago, and only now began to address the lack of preparation with 2 weeks to go, I'd say you're in quite a bit of trouble and this situation may not be recoverable. However, if the most recent materials came to you just last month, it seems like you can still be ready in time, but you will **need to focus on this extensively**.
I would also look at what resources your graduate program provides regarding these exams: look at your graduate handbook or similar documentation, consult with staff in the program if relevant to see what expectations are, talk to senior students in your program who have completed this step.
More generally, it's important to recognize that the PhD is a time of growing independence. You're expected to be responsible for your own education at the PhD stage, more than previous educational steps. Yes, your advisor is there to help mentor you on the things you're new to: the conduct of research, the process of academic publishing, obtaining grant funding. You're likely expected to complete other tasks on your own, though, including managing your own time. You should not expect your advisor to say "I'd like to spend X hours on Task A today, Y hours on Task B, etc".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The only thing I have to add here is a response to your last sentence:
>
> I thought about talking with the program coordinator but it might not be wise as things might get worse at the end.
>
>
>
Speaking as a program coordinator, **I wish students would come talk to me at the earliest point when they think things might be going off the rails**. It doesn't always help, but there are *many* instances when I could have done something (given useful advice, made an exception, delayed an exam ...) *if I had known in time* but instead I'm left with cleaning up a mess. You should be able to speak to the program coordinator in confidence (i.e., without your advisor knowing), if that's a concern. They (the program coordinator) know more about the situation (the formal rules and unofficial norms of your program, something about your advisor's personality and track record, etc.) than anyone here does.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/03
| 1,076
| 4,428
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm early in my career (undergrad in US) and I coauthored a paper with a graduate student. The paper is not groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination, but it is my first publishable(?) research and I am proud it.
He was about to defend when we submitted the paper, so he assured me that we would resubmit if rejected, despite the rush around the defense time. The paper got rejected, but he successfully defended and left to a private research lab. Despite trying to reach him, I haven't gotten any response since a short thank you note (for helping with research, surprisingly) replying to my email congratulating him on the defense. He is occasionally active on Github. The only versions I could find of this paper are the current one on arxiv, which is an old copy without my name on it, or the unlabelled copy we submitted to the journal. The latex was on overleaf, but that seems to be unshared with me.
I'm at a loss as to what to do or why this happened. He even invited me to his defense and thanked me in the dissertation. His advisor is somewhat scary (blunt perhaps? he's quite famous and comes across as though he doesn't have time for anyone beyond his highest preforming PhD students), so I'm not sure if I should email him.
If I somehow get access to the paper (or copy it from the journal pdf to latex manually), would it be unethical to try to modify and resubmit by myself. The PhD student would definitely be an author given his contributions, but likely would have to focus on his current job if he even responds.<issue_comment>username_1: You cannot submit a paper without the consent of all authors. When submitting, you normally have to confirm that all authors have read the final version and approve of submitting it to the journal. Not having consent of everyone--but telling a journal you do--is thus not only highly unethical but fraudulent.
It is unarguably not an ideal situation for you, but you should keep on trying to contact him and/or the advisor, who might at least be able to shed some light on the situation. Even though they might be intimidating, a request such as yours is perfectly reasonable and I would not be afraid to contact them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If this were my problem, I would waltz right in his advisor's office and ask if he's heard from my coauthor. If so, I'd explain the situation and see if he could meditate the situation at all, if I can't reach my coauthor. I wouldn't care how intimidating their advisor is, who they are, or what their reputation is, I have work that needs publishing and I won't let someone's attitude get in the way of that.
This *doesn't* mean you be mean of course, but you must be assertive go and speak to them in person and see if you can work this out.
Just as a note, this is why you also gotta be friends with your coworkers, sometimes. I've never met my other mentor/coworker (he's in NYC, I'm in Atlanta), but he's also my friend. I can text or call him, we text pretty much every day, we usually have weekly meetings. So while we're coworkers, we're also friends. My point, is that having a good personal relationship (even is you're not close "friends") is equally as important as a functional and good professional relationship. That way, you'd have a clear communication channel set up, instead of working with someone (it seems like) you don't know very well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: You can't submit the paper without the approval of all authors. It will generally violate publisher policies, and if the journal finds out that some authors actually don't approve of the submission, expect the manuscript to be desk rejected. Either you excise their contribution and submit without them, or you are stuck.
On the other hand, you can try harder to contact them. From your description it doesn't seem like you've tried very hard. Other things you can do are:
* Give him a phone call.
* Contact their supervisor. It sounds like you're intimidated by their fearsome reputation, but if you specifically need their help (this issue should qualify; they are only of only a few people that can help) then you should not worry about contacting them.
* Contact their department receptionist.
* Contact their office mates (i.e., other people sharing their office), if you can tell who they are.
*Someone* should be able to help you contact your co-author.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/03
| 438
| 1,648
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently doing my M.Sc in Physics and want to do Phd in Atmospheric Physics or Environmental sciences. Am I eligible to become an assistant professor of Physics?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience in the U.K., applications for assistant professorships in general focus on things like research output and teaching. They almost certainly do not care what you did your masters in.
I can’t promise that other universities in different countries wouldn’t have some obscure rule about this, but it seems unlikely to me.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You generally become Assistant Professor in an area very close to your research subject, because professorship are often given on the basis of the research output.
Teaching-related skills and experience are generally required, but you generally obtain them as a side "gig" during your research years (PhD and Postdoc, for example) ... so they tend to be close to your research topic.
Outside of the scope of your Master's exams (and not even there), do not think in terms of bureaucratic, closed boxes. A PhD in Atmospheric Physics can range from "physics" as investigating [high-energy particles](https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4515/2018/) to "arts" as in [data-science integrated into arts](https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/14/2987/2014/acp-14-2987-2014.html).
It depends on your specific person if you are the "physicist doing physics" borrowed to "atmospheric physics" or the "atmospheric physicist" borrowing "physics" technique ... in the end no one cares, as long as the results are consistent and relevant to the community.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/03
| 3,130
| 13,370
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing a presentation for a mathematical modeling conference soon, involving online discourse which contains racist and other slurs as one of the prominent features under study. The specific slurs used as keywords are not an insignificant part of the experimental methods.
I would like to deliver a talk that respects the conference-goers and everyone involved, while not alienating or offending anybody. However, the data itself is highly offensive and this is a basic premise of the research.
I am unfamiliar with the standard practice here; I have seen computational social science conferences where they simply list the words fully spelled out, but that audience was probably much more familiar with this type of data.
I should note that while this work is well within the scope of the conference, it is a slightly irregular source of data and many in the audience may not be familiar with it at all.<issue_comment>username_1: As a person of color, I would much rather even the most offensive words be spelled out on the screen rather than misunderstand the research. There is an understanding that this is a research context and no one is called anyone else at the conference that name. This has also been standard practice in the (admittedly few) times I've come across this. People refrain from saying the words out loud in the presentation, although I suspect this is due to the presenter perceiving a stronger stigma against it rather than other people minding.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Linguist here. I don't work on hate speech specifically, but the issue is important and a matter of active scholarly discussion. I'm going to talk a bit about the literature, and then a bit about my own experience. The short version is that I would recommend erring on the side of caution wherever possible.
"We can distinguish two different questions here," say [Cepollaro and Zeman (2020)](https://brill.com/view/journals/gps/97/1/article-p1_1.xml?language=en) in their introduction to an edited volume on issues in the meaning of slurs. "[O]ne is whether or not slurs are derogatory when mentioned; another is whether in certain contexts mentioning slurs is justified by an important purpose: such contexts may include theoretical and experimental investigation on epithets, activism against bigotry or testimony in court."
There is no consensus yet, at least in the literature (I continue paraphrasing Cepollaro and Zeman here). Earlier work on the question (e.g. Schlenker 2007) proposes that slurs can be rendered inert by being isolated from the original context. More-recent studies (Anderson and Lepore 2013a, 2013b; Anderson 2016) say the opposite - that those words are still volatile and harmful even when they are in a laboratory setting. Cepollaro, Sulpizio, and Bianchi (2019) do a perception study that finds a middle-ground but is perhaps closer to those urging caution: they find that reported use of slurs carries a lessened degree of offense, but it's still very much nonzero.
My own opinion is that, by analogy, bombs in the laboratory are still bombs. The fact that we understand them and want to study them doesn't mean they're suddenly innocuous - especially if there are people in attendance who are targeted by a slur in question.
In my experience, one of my Black colleagues (a raciolinguist specifically) took me aside once and very patiently explained that it had been a *major* problem for me (a white woman) to have left an in-group reclaimed slur essentially unchallenged in a presentation. It was in there because it was in a table of big-data results from a study of emerging words on social media. I'd noticed this term and thought about it and decided to say nothing, which was the wrong call. I was happy to apologize, but I regret that I made anyone present have to figure out how to explain this to a white woman who might have flown off the handle for all they knew.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Ask yourself "Do they really need to be shown to understand the research?" Be honest here. Just because it is common in your field to display the words, that doesn't mean it is necessary to understand. If you redact racist slurs, and just state there are racist slurs in many studies you could still understand the talk. You can even take 10 sec to explain why you are not including them on the slides.
Alternatively, if the slurs are needed to understand the talk, one option is to pre-empt the slides with a warning slide stating that "the following slides will contain racist and inflammatory slurs. These can be triggering, I struggled thinking about whether to include them, but ultimately I need them displayed for the audience to understand the methodology, please feel free to leave the room or look away. I will give a few seconds now for anyone who wants to leave the room to do so." I'm not sure that wording is great but that is the idea. You can even post the warning on your first slide, which might be a less awkward time for people to leave the room. The important thing is that you've demonstrated to the audience that you have thought about it and are making an effort.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: So, I actually just figured this out for my particular case.
What I forgot to mention, which is crucial, is that the research method in question doesn't begin with the set of slurs as keywords a priori but in fact selects them from another dataset using an automated procedure that also picks up a few words which are not slurs but are generally representative of the word list.
What I decided to do was just to omit the offensive keywords and report only the procedure by which the words are selected along with a sample of the keywords that does not include any slurs and then mention that the algorithm also produces some extremely derogatory keywords which we do not print.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Suppose that you actually include, say, the "n-word" in your slides. It's certainly possible that no-one in the audience will object if you explain your motivation clearly enough. It's also possible that, no matter how clearly you explain your motivation, some people will still come up to you after the talk and tell you how hurtful it has been to have seen that word and how you cannot possibly understand the hurt that the word has caused because of this or that reason. How are you going react then? If you're going to react with a contrite apology, you definitely shouldn't have displayed the word in the first place. If, on the other hand, you are willing to stand your ground in the face of a person telling you how grievously they have been hurt by seeing a certain sequence of letters in your slides, then I sincerely applaud you, but that's only the first hurdle for you to clear.
The next hurdle is that it's possible, depending on the size of the audience, that you will get someone going into full outrage mode and sharing it on social media. Just because 9 people here will tell you that it's okay (because they want to believe the others will be equally reasonable) doesn't mean that the 10th person, the one that actually sits in on your talk, will share that perspective. Then you may well get a mob of strangers who know absolutely nothing about the context in which you displayed or mentioned the word forming strong opinions about what an awful person you are and how they need to make sure that your institution and collaborators know about this. If you think that in such a case your instutition and your colleagues will have your back, you are most likely wrong.\*\* You will most likely get some private expressions of sympathy but very little public support, no matter how well you explain your motivation for displaying the word. Are you willing to stand your ground in the face of this type of outrage? If you are (in which case I applaud you in the strongest terms), then you can begin to think about whether including the word in your slides is the right thing to do or not. But if you aren't, then you probably shouldn't include it. Note that once you use the word, this is something that anyone can use against you at any point in the future in any context. Is this something that you are okay with?
Finally, in the matter of whether including the word is the right thing to do or not, you will have to make up your own mind. The idea that you can delegate this kind of decision to "experts" is mistaken (although certainly reading what people who have thought about the matter more deeply can be helpful). The main question is, do you think that there such serious harm is exposing adults to something like the "n-word" given its history that no amount of explaining can give you the right to mention it during your talk, or do you think that the idea that even mentioning this word in a context such as yours traumatizes adult humans is at best a superstition and at worst a pretext under which to force others to at least outwardly display conformity to the dominant ideology of the highly educated cosmopolitan class on pain of career consequences? I personally am much more sympathetic to the second perspective, but the point is that this is up to you to decide.
You may espouse neither of these two perspectives, but from your question and comments it seems almost certain you are much closer to the first than to the second. In that case, you should exercise a great deal of caution and ask yourself very seriously what you are going to do if someone comes up to you after the talk and claims to be deeply hurt by seeing the word. People who are prone to react like that no matter how much explanation you provide *do* exist, and it's anyone guess what the chances of one of them showing up to your talk. Are you going to apologize and "do some extra reading about the slur in question", like username_2 did? In that case you shouldn't include it in the first place.
Even if you do share the second belief, you should do a cost-benefit analysis of whether it's worth it *to you*, given that there may well be people in the audience who passionately believe that there is an obligation to shield adults from seeing and hearing the word and who will stop at nothing, including actively working to damage your career, to achieve this goal. For example, I would very much have liked to include the "n-word" in this answer to illustrate my point, but the cost-benefit analysis is that the benefit would have been negligible (especially given that it would have been edited out in a matter of minutes) and almost equally well achieved by spelling out that I would have liked to do so, while the cost of doing so might definitely be non-negligible. The same applies to your talk: if you think it should be okay to include the word in your talk, it's still probably a better idea to avoid it and instead make clear your disapproval of theatrical and tribal reactions to any mention of the "n-word". This will suffice to make the point and will not jeopardize your career to the same degree that actually saying or displaying the word might. In the current climate, unless this is a hill that you're 100% willing to die on, I recommend that you don't.
\*\* I am too lazy to google examples right now, but in any case, anyone with the slightest amount of familiarity with the matter is aware of such examples, while people who profess not to be aware of examples of careers being senselessly ruined by the moral panic around the "n-word" will not be convinced by any number of examples.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: **Let self-selection effects do the heavy-lifting here ---** In your title and description of your presentation (and maybe also in its abstract if it has one), make it clear what the topic is and that it contains racial slurs. If you want to add extra precaution, you could repeat that information at the start of your talk and give people a chance to leave if the topic or content is something that would upset them. You needn't go so far as to add "trigger warnings", but I'd recommend that your description of your talk be clear that it includes rracial slurs, so that there are no surprises in content. If a person turns up to an academic talk on the analysis of data relating to the use of racial slurs (and this topic has been clearly advertised as such), it is unlikely that they are the type of person who is offended by reading racial slurs in an academic context.
As to the substantive issue of whether or not to censor the terms, my recommendation would be to use the non-censored presentation of the terms at issue. In my view, it is good to preserve the use versus mention dichotomy clearly, and to reinforce this by taking the view that mention of racial slurs is appropriate in these contexts. Moreover, there is a lot of research suggesting that academic practices that encourage "safetyism" (e.g., sensitivity and offence to words and ideas) are a cause of poor learning outcomes and psychological dysfunction (for an overview, see e.g., [Lukianoff and Haidt 2018](https://www.thecoddling.com/)). Of course, if you do this you might run across an audience member with an opposing view (and even one who is upset by seeing the uncensored terms) so you should be prepared to explain why you choose to use the terms in this way.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/03
| 2,666
| 11,646
|
<issue_start>username_0: We live in very comfortable times (more or less). Nowadays communication between people from different parts of the world is very easy. In addition, many people are born into wealthy families, so they have the possibility to dedicate their lives to whatever they want.
With this in mind, it seems to me that there should be many people who dedicate themselves to science or mathematics without being linked to any research center. I can think of some examples from the past, like [Henry Cavendish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish). But I have no present examples in mind. I don't remember reading an article in which the authors are not related to any university.
Obviously, no one can have a large hadron collider in their living room, but we can read and write about more theoretical topics (such as pure mathematics). So, is there a reason why there aren't independent researchers out there? Or am I wrong and there are people like that? Even if there are a few cases, it seems to me that there should be many people in that situation.
Perhaps the academy rejects this type of researchers or it is possible that nowadays things are so difficult that it is not possible to make discoveries without the support of an institution (universities and others), but I am not sure that this is the case...<issue_comment>username_1: Money has to come from somewhere. In days long past, "independent" researchers were really just protégés of their wealthy patrons (or wealthy themselves), whether royalty or from business. Those people are responsible for spending their own funds, and if they want to spend them on someone who impresses them they're free to do so.
The modern university is a means to distribute government funds for research (in addition to other educational missions). In some cases, they also directly create the funds for research by effectively using tuition funds to pay professors to teach part-time while spending other time on research. Some bureaucracy is necessary to do the administrative work of making sure money is spent on what it's supposed to be spent on, enforcing research ethics, monitoring the mentor/mentee relationships between professors and students, etc.
If you can find someone who'll just hand you cash to do research outside a university, including all the support infrastructure you might need like library services and ethics review boards and stipends for students to study with you, you can be as independent as you like.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The short answer is really that people do what they are paid for. "Independent researchers" in the way you describe them don't have a salary, and the only people who can do that are those who are independently wealthy *and* have the inclination to spend their days doing research. That's just not a very large number of people.
But let's pretend that you have someone who fits the bill. Then they still need *some* kind of infrastructure. For example, they need access to a library because it is quite a hassle to pay individually for every article you want to look at. It turns out to be quite *useful* in that case to be affiliated with a university, and in that case if you are serious about your research hobby, you might as well take an unpaid position at a university -- or if you're good enough, you might just as well take a paid position where you become formally associated with the university even though you might not actually need the money.
The situation above is then geared to people who have enough money not to *need* an income, but for which the next step is not a possibility: Let's assume that you don't just have $5M in the bank, but a $1B. In that case, you have so much money that not only do you not *have* to work, but you can actually pay other people as well. Quite a number of billionaires have actually done that: They see their mission in founding and/or running a research institute -- i.e., they feel passionate enough about a subject that they want to pay others to work on it. Occasionally, they might end up doing some research themselves as well, but their main mission is about the funding and management of these institutes.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: This is a very interesting question and I pondered about it myself in the past.
I think that just like anything in life, you eventually need other people to succeed (or succeed even more in case you are already successful -- see below). Academia provides you with tools that are very necessary for research but often overlooked such as:
1. Equipment for experiments
2. Free software
3. Access to research articles
4. Access to other researchers both locally and via an extended network of collaborators
5. Lectures, courses, workshops, networking events
In fact, academic publishing became a thing 300 years ago in order to help researchers come together as a body that works towards scientific advancement. Before publishing, people worked independently and received support from nobles and patrons. Even Einstein, who worked independently initially, joined Academia eventually.
So it's very much possible up to a point, I think, but eventually, it's beneficial to be part of something like a community.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Certainly there are some solo researchers.
One thing is, it's not a simple thing to know how many there are because it's not a simple thing to know how many researchers there are in a field period.
It's not even a straightforward thing to know how many researchers there are at any given institution. Consider PhD candidates through to emeritus profs. Often it is not made clear who is or is not involved with a given school. The profs are usually there long enough to be officially listed. Emeritus profs might or might not be, depending on the level of involvement they have. Post docs and research associates might or might not be listed, depending on the particular culture at a particular institute. Grad students often hide until their thesis is due.
Also, research papers do not usually come at regular predictable intervals. So if you see a paper by one person, and nothing a few years, are they still active? Or did they get a non-research job? Or did they do a "fly-by" and do some research "on the side" from a non-research job? So, even to a given person, it is not always manifest whether they are involved in research.
From another point of view, there is the question of earning a living. Outside of universities and institutes, there isn't a huge amount of money in quantum gravity theory. Universities have tuition income, grants from government and industry, and income from endowments. Non-university research institutes often have all of that other than the tuition income.
Another aspect of institutions is that the social structure and reputation of the place can be helpful in applying for grants. A grant application from Shining University on the Hill (a made up name to represent some very well known uni) will likely look better to nearly any grant agency, government or private. So getting money on your own is, sometimes, much harder.
Institutions usually also have a variety of facilities from libraries to athletic centers that are quite attractive. A big meeting hall for visiting speakers. Grad students to do "mundane" calculations on papers. Colleagues to ask for suggestions when you get stuck. And so on. So the lone researcher is missing out on a lot of this. If a talented individual does not like the uni culture, they will often seek a non-uni research institute.
The structure of an institution is supportive in other ways. Feynman expressed it this way. When he was doing some interesting research and making progress on it, he felt very good about that. But when the research was quiet or going very slow, he could still feel good about teaching his students. That would sustain him until the problem with the research was dealt with. So, having something useful to do besides staring at an unsolved equation (or whatever) can be very personally helpful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The urge to associate and communicate is innate to us humans. So much so that *dialogue* is a powerful way, even a necessity, to come up with new ideas. Historically, cities, where lots of people congregated, were the hotbeds of innovation, and within the cities the universities.
It is hard to inspire oneself; it is hard to come up with something new without input. The history of science is full with hallway encounters and scientific cross-fertilization, if you want. I suppose that being part of a group and having friends who are physically present is also important in personal and social ways, providing stability and support. I think most researchers encounter a crisis at some point in their career where they need personal encouragement and validation.
This scientific and social dialogue is much easier and more frequent and less directed (one condition for surprise, which is another word for something new) when people are in the same location. Our current experiments with home office seem to indicate that while the *standard work* can be done quite efficiently remotely, other aspects fall short. My guess is that strategy and innovation are among those.
That said, there are subjects like mathematics where a capable mind can penetrate problems in solitude. Because it also doesn't usually need any infrastructure there are famous examples of reclusive mathematicians. But modern mathematics is becoming increasingly collaborative. Much progress can be made by "parallelizing" problems by [investigating sub-problems or special cases](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/). As far as I can tell, this cooperation is often happening remotely though; perhaps the nature of math (and the mathematicians?) makes it more agreeable with remote communication than some other sciences.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Since people need to eat, the only practical way to do this for most people is to do it as a hobby, and some fields are actually suitable. The one I am most familiar with is astronomy, where some gear can be within the budget of individuals, and there is a large tradition of stargazing for pleasure.
Some of those people do actual research, and even collaborate with professional astronomers doing what is called [Pro-Am astronomy.](https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/42/1/1.31/271005)
Some of the targets (like supernovae discovery) are eventually gobbled up by institutions, but the amateur community was useful paving the way and showing what it was possible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: If you're not associated with a university or a large business, you're probably a crank.
========================================================================================
There does exist a fair amount of research being done outside of academia, such as the AI research being done by large IT companies like Google or Microsoft, or drug research being done at large pharmaceutical companies.
However, if some random person working on their own claims to be doing scientific research, odds are they're just a crank. Being unaffiliated means that they haven't gone through the vetting process that clears out most of the crank and leaves the people who make actual research. Occasionally you'll get people who do make actual progress, like those high school kids who made the news for creating a new proof of Pythagoras's Theorem using trigonometry, but it's not often.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/03
| 525
| 2,228
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have written a first draft of a paper, but I have found it is way too long for any journal, so I decided to divide it into two separate papers with titles along the line:
>
> My paper I - Theory
>
>
> My paper II - Applications
>
>
>
How do I submit the two papers together to the same journal?
I am afraid they might be seen as two separate submissions and go to different referees, so the first will drown in a sea of formulae, while the second will read about applications of formulae he/she does not know and might not understand.<issue_comment>username_1: I would honestly try to rewrite both papers, aiming at submitting paper I in say Journal A (theory paper), and paper II in Journal B (applications).
It'll be a nice exercise in restructuring and repurposing an academic paper and it'll give you two publications. I would search for journals that focus on theory to submit paper I and journals that focus on applications to submit paper II.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If the two papers cannot be reviewed independently, then they cannot be read independently. In that case it sounds like the decision to split the paper was wrong.
You should split a paper, or not, based on content not based on length. Some 100-page papers work best as a single paper, and some 20-page papers would be better off split into two.
If the theory section can be sensibly split, then doing that and dividing the applications between the two papers appropriately would make sense. But splitting theory from applications does not.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There's no problem here, what you are doing is quite sensible and happens often, say, in math. You just just describe the situation clearly in the cover letter, requesting that the two papers are handled by the same associate editor.
Whether or not they are assigned the same referee is not so important, and it's actually up to the editor. What's important is that all referees involved have access to both papers. If you put them both on ArXiv and cross-reference, the problem is solved. If you don't want to make them public yet, then you can for example attach them to each other as supplementary material.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/04
| 560
| 2,275
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted an article for peer review early last year and received a referee report (major revisions) a few weeks after that. I've finally prepared a rebuttal and revisions to the article, after about 14 months have passed.
I plan to resubmit the article nonetheless, partly because the editor reached out (a year ago) encouraging resubmission.
When I submit the rebuttal and revisions, should I apologize and/or provide reasons for the delay to the referee and editors? Or should I just ignore the delay and resubmit like nothing happened?
---
Additional context:
* The field is physics, the journal is Physical Review A.
* The delay in my response is not because the response/changes took a lot of effort. The changes took about week of work cumulatively and this will be evident to reviewers/editor.
* The main reasons for the long delay are, in order:
1. Some combination of procrastination issues and academic burnout.
2. My contract ended with the institution where I did this work and the work at my new employer was pretty intense.
3. I switched subfields and completely lost interest/momentum in the project.<issue_comment>username_1: I submitted my first solo paper in August. Got my first round of review in November. Haven't submitted back since (just an RR). Why? Busy! I'm still in school. And the editor told me "Better wait and submit it right, than to submit it too soon with too little progress". So, no need to apologize. Life is busy, and academia generally gets that. I would apologize, IF you said you'd get it in by a given deadline, and didn't. But, if there's no deadline..... then it isn't a very big deal, unless the editors say so.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The first two things that would cross my mind on receiving your revision would be:
1. I wonder if there are more recent developments in the past year, and if the authors have included these in the article.
2. This article is not likely to be groundbreaking, or the author would not take this long to revise.
Neither of these things would be affected by whether you apologized, so don't agonize over this. You could apologize (and there can be no drawback for apologizing), but nobody will get angry if you don't.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/04
| 567
| 2,518
|
<issue_start>username_0: I didn't notice that the page numbers had somehow been removed from my thesis before submission. I just saw this.
The day before I had included all the correctly formatted page numbers and set up the ToC. Finally the ToC had the correct numbers but my footers had been removed!
Should I try to send a new amended one with numbers in spite of the marks being cut off or not? How much is either of these options going to affect my supervisor and other's opinion of me? How serious is this of a mistake?
Please help<issue_comment>username_1: We don't know. For me something like missing page numbers does not play a major role in determining the grade, but it may tip the scale if I am uncertain about what grade to give. Submitting a thesis late (or resubmitting it late) also leads to a reduction in grade. So we don't know which course of action is better.
If it is quickly after the submission date, I would be open to a student contacting me and asking what to do.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don't think it's very serious as mistakes happen and this doesn't affect your knowledge and understanding of your subject. I wouldn't let this affect the mark, and I think mine is a majority position, but not knowing your supervisor and university we can't know, and stranger things have happened.
It is somewhat annoying for reading and marking though, so I recommend to contact your supervisor as soon as possible (the longer you wait, the longer they have to deal with a version without page numbers), tell them what has happened, and offer to send them a version with page numbers. If something like this happens, it can leave a positive impression if you recognise your error and are proactive to rectify it. Also it would be helpful to anyone who reads the thesis.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: It is annoying to referee a large document without page numbers, since this makes it difficult and annoying to clearly identify the parts of the work on which you are giving feeback. For that reason, I would strongly recommend reprinting and resubmission. Check with your supervisor first, but that is probably the best option. While I can't speak for the academics in charge of this matter, I probably would not impose a marking penalty for this, even if the corrected version comes after the deadline (but within a reasonable time). On the other hand, I suspect that a referee might heavily criticise the absence of page numbers in a review.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/04
| 502
| 2,367
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I am going to apply for a Ph.D. in Computer Science, with a specialization in programming languages, is it okay to use a recommendation letter from other areas of Computer Science, say cryptography?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no rule against this unless it is explicitly stated in the conditions for application. Assuming that the person in question knows you and your research potential well (or say better than others who you could've asked), this should be fine.
Note that it cannot be said in general how recommendation letters are used when assessing applications as this hugely depends on the admission process, which differs between universities, countries, subject areas, and the people who make the decisions.
Recommendation letters may or may not play an important role in the process (I think they shouldn't, but unfortunately I have seen it happening), so it is a good idea to arrange for letters of people who can write something informative. This usually means that they know well how you work and about your academic potential. In principle such people can be found outside the area where you apply, but chances are that a certain connection should exist, otherwise the commission (or whoever makes the decision) may think that the experiences of the writer with you may not be relevant. However in my view the connection can be rather loose; the skills required for cryptography are not totally different from those required in theoretical computer science (as far as I know what I'm talking about here), so I don't see a problem there.
Also it may help if somebody in the commission knows the writer or their work (at least if this is in a positive way), and chances for this are bigger in the same area, but neither are they 100% there nor 0% if the writer comes from a different field, so this is generally something the student can't make sure. It is rather something of a random experiment from the student's point of view (which is one of the reasons why I think recommendation letters shouldn't be a major aspect of making admission decisions).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Yes, that is fine. More important than the academic specialty of the referee is what they can say about your skills and experience and your research potential in your area of interest.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/04
| 657
| 2,846
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have an upcoming presentation in an international conference in a bit more than a month. I wrote the abstract for my presentation in February, in which I said I would present early results. It is even in the title of my submission: "presentation of [project] and first results".
However, I am progressing much slower than I expected and I will probably not have results by then.
What can I do? My coworker (project leader) and I have already paid for the participation and prepared the trip, which is a big expense for our project. Can I just send an email to the conference saying "actually, I will not include results in my presentation" and attach a new abstract? I feel amateur and lame. Or maybe, it is too late for me to change? This terrifies me and I feel miserable.
I read [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/185277/presenting-at-a-conference-with-no-results) and I feel like my case is a bit different because I specifically wrote that I would present results.<issue_comment>username_1: I think answers to the linked question are fine. Chances are changing the abstract is no longer possible, so I'd recommend to milk what you have done, what you know, and what you plan to do in such a way that it makes an as interesting as possible presentation. Always think of the audience and what could be of interest to them. You can well say that you don't have some of the results you expected to have when submitting the abstract. This is a not too unusual thing to happen. People are used to something being presented that is not 100% what the abstract says. Try to entertain the audience well anyway.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Since you don't *have* results to present, you are going to have to bite the bullet and revise your presentation topic to something else. The sooner you make this change and communicate it to the conference organisers the better. You should revise your presentation topic and abstract along with revising the substance of your talk, and do your best to have this change reflected in the conference program. If it is too late to amend the conference program then the audience is just going to have to live with getting the ol' switcheroo when they attend your talk.
The good news is that audience members are not going to care about this —or think badly of you— so long as you give them a good talk on a substitute topic. Create a new presentation on some other aspect of your research project, or even an unrelated problem or issue (perhaps a talk on *Academic Tips for Dealing with Deadlines in Delayed Research Projects*). Make sure it is interesting and adds value for your audience. If you can enlighten and entertain then no-one is going to be too worried that the content of the talk did not match the brochure.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/04
| 1,479
| 6,673
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is something I've never been satisfied with. If two people are playing chess, and one person consistently beats the other person, then it makes sense to say that one is better than the other at chess. But in math, you have people who are working on different problems, so what metrics are used to rank mathematicians and say, "This mathematician is stronger than that one"?
I can think of a few:
* Mathematician A published more papers.
* Mathematician A published papers in more prestigious journals.
* Mathematician A proved more results that are of interest to other mathematicians
* Mathematician A solved a problem that other mathematicians have tried to solve.
* Mathematician A is a better collaborator -- perhaps works more quickly or gets along well with other people.
For the last two, the issue seems to be that "quality" of mathematics depends on working on what others are interested in. The whole thing doesn't really make much sense to me. If you come up with a problem that interests you, solve it, and write it up, isn't that a success? The reason I ask is because mathematicians seem to care a lot about the rankings. I grew up with the idea that mathematicians at higher-ranked universities are "better" than mathematicians at lower-ranked universities. The only way I can think of that makes sense is if two mathematicians are working on the same problem and one mathematician comes up with the answer first.<issue_comment>username_1: Badly. Ranking people on producing useful things does not work with any kind of accuracy. It only works for games and sports because they are specifically designed to rank people. Even then, the rankings have poor predictive power in many cases.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I have a feeling that the question was misunderstood. It is not uncommon for mathematicians to rank other mathematicians. In fact, almost anything in mathematics, whether it is universities, journals or people, are often being ranked for multiple purposes. For instance, most mathematicians will agree that the annals of mathematics, JAMS or inventiones are ranked higher than most other journals in pure mathematics, there are official rankings for universities (e.g. shanghai ranking), and, while ranking mathematicians is harder than ranking journals and universities, it is happening all the time (e.g. in hiring committees, prize committees, grants selections etc.).
It is not obvious how to rank one mathematician over another, and from my experience everyone has a different way of measuring the contribution of someone's work to mathematics. I think all of the metrics that you mentioned are evaluated and the preference of one over another depends completely on the individual (note that they may also depend on your field, for instance people who work in certain areas of combinatorics are often expected to publish more than people who work in, say, algebraic topology).
At the end of the day people look at your papers and where you published them, your grants and prizes, your university and often they also ask for opinions of other mathematicians in the field or the opinion of other mathematicians they trust. Therefore, anything you do to increase the quality of one of those aspect will be in your favor. Other than that you just need luck, you can never guarantee being the top choice of any committee.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me begin by saying that in the phrase "rank other mathematicians" there are already two misconceptions. First, I don't think anyone tries to "rank", in terms of putting in an absolute order, except in the context of ranking candidates for a position, which is quite different and involves consideration of many factors, most of which are irrelevant to your question. But do we (informally and privately) evaluate? Yes, I imagine most people do.
Secondly, one can't really evaluate mathematicians, only their output. There are many reasons why someone who is (insofar as we can really make the comparison) a "better" mathematician than someone else might still achieve less, either in total or per unit time.
---
Having said all that, how do we evaluate other mathematicians' output? Any such evaluation is necessarily somewhat subjective - much more like comparing artists than comparing chess players.
As you suggest, it is about what they have published, and often where their papers appear, who else has worked on the same problems, etc. There are fairly good reasons for this.
It is much easier to make these evaluations for research that is close to your own area of expertise. Here you can read the papers and get a clear sense of how impressive they are, both in terms of significance of results and in terms of how difficult or brilliant the proofs are. Of course, there is still the difficulty with collaborative papers that you cannot tell who contributed what. But you can perhaps get a sense from the overall output, e.g. if it is almost all collaboration with one or two more senior people that it may not actually be as impressive as it appears.
Now if you are looking at someone further from your own area, you are probably reliant on quality of journals as a proxy for this. This is much better than trying to evaluate the papers yourself. The journal they end up in depends on the (subjective, somewhat unreliable, but informed) opinion of experts in the area, and this is normally a better guide than your own (subjective, somewhat unreliable and uninformed) opinion. There is the disadvantage, however, that it is much easier to get into top journals in some areas of math than in others.
Whether someone else has worked on the problem before, or is interested in the results, and who that someone else is, is very relevant. This is because the purpose of writing a paper is to advance mathematical knowledge, not to prove you can do mathematics. If other people are interested, then you are doing good mathematics, and if other (good) people have worked on the problem in the past without solving it, then you must be doing impressive mathematics. If you come up with your own problem and solve it - an "answer to a question no-one asked", to quote <NAME> - then that probably doesn't really advance mathematical knowledge, and gives no idea of how difficult it was. If you come up with enough problems, eventually one will turn out to be relatively easy, and if no-one else is interested there is no competition with anyone else trying to solve it first. It is the problems already known to be difficult and believed to be interesting (to paraphrase William Morris) that are worth solving.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/05
| 2,867
| 11,755
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a sophomore at a competitive university, and I have been interested in mathematics for most of my life. As a result, I decided to take up math in university. I am ahead of most other students when it comes to math, having already taken a graduate-level course in differential topology. I have been told I have what it takes to be a mathematics professor. However, I am reluctant to pursue a pure math PhD. I am getting to math courses that are very interesting, yet are not needed for most careers (like advanced number theory). Though mathematics is my greatest strength and an interesting subject, I am interested in a variety of other subjects.
I have poured a lot of time into studying math. Halfway through my studies in the university, I wonder whether I should spend a significant amount of time studying some other subject in depth with the hope to get a career related to that subject. So, my question is: should I keep studying math at my current intensity, even though I have mastered basic math courses (algebra/analysis/topology), or should I dial back my intensity in math and spend significant time to get a deep understanding in a different area?
Of course, I have taken introductory courses in other areas, but there is no one area besides math I have studied *in depth*. So, this is a significant decision. I know this question is subjective, thus I only ask for the pros and cons of both paths. Two additional subjects I am interested in are computer science and chemistry/biochemistry. I feel fortunate to have a good understanding of basic math this early, and I repeatedly get asked what I will do with this math, and I am divided on the answer. I am specifically interested if anybody has any thoughts on the combination of chemistry and math.
I also encourage anyone to share if they have suggestions for areas outside of STEM that they think a mathematician would benefit from understanding deeply. I was actually raised in Washington DC which provoked activism for certain political issues. My point: I am not against studying humanities as a mathematician. My good friend (a few years older) has done the reverse of this: he went to college mostly for humanities and currently attends graduate school for math, even though he knew he had an interest in math from high school. Any advice on these questions is welcome, and thanks in advance to anyone who takes time to provide advice.<issue_comment>username_1: Based on what you say here, it seems you have never done any mathematics *research*. The job of a working mathematician is very different to studying undergrad or even graduate level math. I don't believe that people can have judged that you have what it takes to become a professor without you having significant research experience.
That said if you feel reluctant to do a pure math PhD then you should (in my opinion) emphatically not do one. A PhD is a long and hard process and if you don't enjoy it for its own sake it is generally a terrible idea.
One thing that is important for you to understand is that most people don't end up working in a career which is directly part of, or even related to, their undergrad degree. A lot of math graduates go on to become programmers, or accountants, or data scientists, or physicists, or inventory managers, or a hundred other jobs that neither you nor I have heard of. Studying pure maths at university does not mean that you will study pure maths for the rest of your life.
Combining chemistry and math, or computer science and math are both fine ideas. I know multiple (UK) universities which offer chemistry and maths, or computer science and maths joint honours degrees (essentially doing half a degree in each subject). If you are interested in studying these subject then you should, but don't feel obliged to for some hypothetical future career.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Most of the following is not necessarily an answer nor "advice," but rather a collection of anecdotes.
I knew fairly early on during my undergrad studies that I was going to go to graduate school and do a PhD. I didn't know at the time *exactly* what I would do with the PhD but I had a good feeling that the kind of careers I was interested in would require that advanced knowledge. In my undergrad, I majored in Pure Mathematics and Combinatorics & Optimization. I wanted to get a minor in Statistics as well because I was thinking: ok, statistics, quantitative finance, those seem like solid career options. In the end, I didn't end up doing the minor because of scheduling conflicts.
Now in grad school, I entered thinking I might end up doing a postdoc and hopefully, eventually becoming a professor. I still took some probability theory courses because it's always good to have options. Otherwise, I started my research, working in combinatorial algebraic geometry and things were ok, I was never a star PhD researcher but my research was "adequate."
Then the COVID-19 pandemic hits and my mental health and my research hit a slump. This began midway through my 3rd year of my PhD (which is a 5-6 year program) and about the time I needed to start thinking about my career after graduating. I realized that research wasn't exciting for me. I still liked it, sure, but it didn't rouse me the same way my undergraduate courses did. But I would have never known this before having started my PhD.
At the same time, I found out that my coauthor was leaving academia to work in industry. This coauthor's research was more pure than mine and he had done 2 postdocs with intentions of going into academia; didn't have much statistics/data science training until near the end of his last postdoc. He's now working as a data scientist. My takeaway is that it is never to late to make a transition from pure math to industry. Of course, all things being equal, it is preferable to have the industry training earlier than later but also don't give into the sunk-cost fallacy and think it's too late to make that transition.
After the pandemic "ended," I took a couple graduate statistics courses because I still wasn't 100% sure which path I would take after grad school. When I started applying for jobs last Fall, I was thinking about what excited me and that was outreach and teaching but outreach doesn't have as many options for a career so I focused on teaching. Also I've heard that tenure-track faculty positions can have 100 or more people competing for 1 position (yikes!). I felt that I wanted to stay in academia for the culture but not so much in research. So I was looking at teaching-focused positions or some government positions in statistics (similar culture, I felt) and a few postdocs because it didn't cost much to apply.
I was recently accepted into a teaching-based position with an equivalent of a tenure-track and I'm quite happy about where I landed in the end.
In my time here, I ended up hanging out with several people who worked in teaching-focused positions (at my school) or graduated and went on to such positions. Maybe it's a case of like-personalities attract. Some other anecdotes of people I've known/met:
* math undergrad, now doing CS for PhD
* PhD in (pure) algebraic geometry, now working in AI
* PhD in algebraic number theory, going to work in a government lab (I believe in quantum computing)
* Exited PhD with a masters degree, going to work in a government institution
* PhD in combinatorics, looking for work in quantitative finance or maybe data science
My school maintains [a list of where PhD alumni end up](https://math.gatech.edu/graduate/post-phd-positions-alumni-school-math) (ACO = Algorithms, Combinatorics, Optimization; CSE = Computational Sciences and Engineering). Although I acknowledge, it doesn't fully specify what they studied in grad school.
There are also postgraduate programs which are not "math PhD/masters" that you can consider. Law schools take people with any bachelors degree although I don't get the sense that that's an easy route to take. There are also math education PhD programs. Even looking at "math PhD" programs, many school offer different flavours like math-bio, quant. finance, combinatorics/optimization, computational math. Or you could apply to a CS program. I haven't read it myself, but see if your library has the book ["101 Careers in Mathematics."](https://bookstore.ams.org/clrm-64)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: 1. You may consider applying for a Masters/PhD programme in an area different from Pure Math. Needless to say, you will be welcome at an Applied Math or CS department. Above that, your application will be gladly considered by professors working in, e.g. quantum field theory (QFT), superstrings, quantum gravity (and gravitational physics in general), celestial mechanics, orbital mechanics. Many schools in the US will then enable you to take remedial undergraduate courses during your Masters/PhD studies.
If you choose to shift to theoretical physics, it will be advisable to read up some quantum mechanics at an undergraduate level. Normally, I would recommend [Griffiths](https://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%20to%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf). However, given your mathematical education, you better use this [little masterpiece](https://bookstore.ams.org/stml-47). It will also be good to make some acquaintance with Relativity. To start right away with General Relativity concepts, the [online course by <NAME>](https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/) may be used. The best textbook on Special Relativity ever written is the little-known [text by Stepanov](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B07GD1TFZJ). Spend 60 bucks on it, and you will be in for a treat.
If you decide to consider celestial and orbital mechanics, try to read this [masterfully written introduction](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/3764358661). It will help you understand if this choice is good for you.
2. Regarding humanities. Beware that in those areas you will encounter a subculture different from that of STEM. While in STEM people still are judged mainly by merit, in humanities (especially in the so-called ``critical studies'') one's political agenda becomes a [key factor](https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236) in their career. If you are comfortable with tuning your research to the ever-changing party line, and if self-censorship doesn't scare you, you may give it a try.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Most of the advice here is about what to do for grad school. I say start simpler by giving yourself a bit of breadth if you think you don’t want to stick with math (you don’t have to stick with something just because you are good at it).
From your comments it seems like you might be interested in things with a bit more of a human application. Check out economics, bioinformatics, data science, network science. Browse some textbooks and have conversations with faculty. Enroll in some mid level courses but don’t feel you have to commit until you try a few things. Good luck.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think it's a good idea to study something else in addition to pure math. It's a good idea to keep your options open. I think it would be a good idea to explore different career paths before deciding to do a PhD in math. (Actually, you have to get in first, and I know people who applied to PhD programs and didn't get in.) Don't apply to PhD programs because you don't know what else you would be doing. Also, it would be a good idea to learn about what life as a professor is actually like. I used to think that mathematicians just spend all day thinking about math, and that is very, very false.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/05
| 799
| 3,480
|
<issue_start>username_0: I don't understand how it's possible to write a large number of papers in good journals without someone advising their research still, past the grad student phase.<issue_comment>username_1: My postdoc mentor did suggest some problems, but they weren't the right fit for me and I never ended up working on them too much. My side project from when I was a PhD (note my dissertation wasn't publishable), which was largely in collaboration with the postdoc whose office was next to mine as a grad student, turned out to be a good line of research that got me to a tenure-track job and tenure - in a university with a low ranked PhD program.
I wouldn't say I turned out great but I turned out not too badly. I should say I probably wouldn't be competitive for the job I have in today's job market though.
You can look at Mathscinet/Zentralblatt for my publication record.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I wouldn't say anyone can write a "large number of papers in good journals" using research ideas suggested by somebody else, either! If the ideas were that good, the advisor would have already pursued them. The kind of research ideas that can generate a perfectly good dissertation are nowhere near good enough to launch a proper research career. It's the standard case that a postdoc isn't a close collaborator of their postdoc host at all. They produce papers in the same way as any other fully trained mathematician.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I only have personal experience of the UK system, but from my acquaintance with those who have done postdocs elsewhere in Europe I would expect the situation there to be broadly similar. Here a postdoc is normally employed using money from a specific grant awarded to someone else (the PI). That person will act as a postdoc mentor and will also usually have a definite idea of potential problems for the postdoc to work on (related to the original grant proposal), although a postdoc will also continue to work on their own independent research. Thus I would expect a reasonable proportion of one's output during a postdoc position to be joint work with the PI, often involving problems suggested by the PI.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I had a very strong postdoc whom I seduced to work on some of my projects instead of the stuff he did in his PhD thesis. That resulted in 7 or 8 joint papers over several years of collaboration that I (and, I hope, he too) can be proud of. So the answer to the question in the title is "occasionally yes" even if the postdoc is very strong and capable of completely independent work.
On the other end of the spectrum, I had a graduate student who came in with his own research idea and the only thing I have ever suggested to him was the formulation of a certain lemma that in my opinion was right in the middle between where he was and where he wanted to be. He managed to prove that lemma and then to derive the result he really wanted from it, and that was essentially all advising that I did (except for signing various bureaucratic papers and reminding him that if he didn't do this or that by the deadline, the defense would have to be moved to a later date).
In general, there are people who prefer to work alone and there are people who like to collaborate with anybody they meet, regardless of whether they are graduate students, postdocs or senior mathematicians. It is merely a matter of personality and circumstances.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/05
| 911
| 3,685
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working as a researcher and applying for a position at a German public university. Due to personal reasons, I would like to work 48 hours per week, with 70% at one university and 50% at another university. The topic of work is similar in both workplaces. But practically, it's hard to get part-time positions. If someone manages to do it, then how is it possible?
Also, how will the leave be calculated?
Which government office is responsible for calculation of working hours? How do the government agencies calculate the total working hours(per month or six months)?<issue_comment>username_1: Concerning the leave (vacation days): if holding two jobs, you have the same amount of vacation days at each job. So normally 2,5 per month or 30 per year. But since you are not working full time, that is not a full workday but only a the fraction of the workday correlating to the hours, that is a 70% day at one job an a 50% day at the other. So that doesn't translate you now have 60 days of vacation, you only have 30 **full** days of vacation. Normally you take your vacation at the same time at both workplaces, because otherwise you will need to work at the place were you didn't take vacation and vice versa.
In general, although not so many people do it, in Germany there is a law that promotes part time working, so while it is not very common at universities so far, it should be possible if you ask for it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: username_1 already answered the vacation part of it, so I'm not covering this. The only small addendum I have to that is that, of course, taking leave from one place doesn't mean you are automatically free from your obligations in the other - quite the opposite, what I see my colleagues with dual appointments often doing is using the vacation at their main place of work to fulfill their teaching obligations at the other.
>
> But practically it's hard to get part-time positions. If someone manages to do it then how is it possible?
>
>
>
Part-time positions at universities aren't all that unusual per se, but maybe not with the percentages you have in mind. Generally speaking, when we hire we are looking for either a full-time staffer or somebody covering one specific need (oftentimes a teacher for one specific course). For the former, a 70% appointment would probably be hard to negotiate, and for the latter 30% is sort of too much. So the much more common arrangement is that people have a 100% employment at one place, and a small (10% - 20%) teaching or research assignment somewhere else. Typically, obligations with the secondary place of work are negotiated in a way that they can be done in blocks and do not require much ongoing presence (e.g., a seminar that can be done in block in three weeks, or a research project that can be done primarily remotely).
You can of course always apply for a full-time position and attempt to negotiate it down to 70% or 80%. I would not expect much enthusiasm for this plan, but depending on their specific needs (and how desperately they want to hire specifically *you*) it may work. Smaller part-time positions are usually found through your network - I would say, if you are an active researcher with decent standing in your local community, it's not particularly difficult to find a university that is willing to give you a small adjunct position (often in exchange for teaching a course per year) - but, again, being an adjunct teacher for 30% or 40% of the time may be more problematic, as at this point this starts to look too much like a normal professorship and may need to go through the usual formal hiring channels.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/06
| 1,383
| 5,861
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently graduated with a PhD in Fall 2022. In my PhD study, I published 7 papers in peer review journals and conferences. In summer semester of 2022, my PhD supervisor stopped my fund few days before the start of the semester and he claimed that I did bad in the previous semester. Later, he said I stopped your fund because you behaved improperly with me. The problem is that he requested me to work all the summer semester on non-research work in his lab such as revising his papers (I am not co-author in these papers) and train his team members with NO SALARY. I couldn't refuse because he wouldn't allow me to graduate. I want to send formal complaint against him to the university. When I told him that I am going to complain about that, he said many student are working on campus with no salary. I would like to know if his situation is illegal or not so that I make complaint against him.<issue_comment>username_1: If you were taking research credits under the advisor. He can assign you work like reviewing papers. I am not sure how many credits you were taking under his guidance
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You are asking an interesting question, but, not knowing the exact details and not being a lawyer, I cannot answer it for your case. It sounds to me that your relationship with your now ex-advisor broke down already before summer.
While most professors (including me) like to make jokes about having graduate students as slaves and cheap labor, they actually deeply care about their graduate students. I hope this includes me as well. The relationship between advisors and students often transcend a strict supervisor-employee relationship and sometimes gets closer to that of a family member (in part because the advisor is also supposed to be a mentor). This gives ample room for difficulties and misbehaviors if things "do not work out".
Belonging to a lab also takes on aspects of being a member of a family. It is typical that students that belong to a lab need to do work for the benefit of the lab, including some mentoring / training of new lab members. If it were the case that you did not do that before the summer, then it would seem just that you were asked to do it in the summer. Lab members are also expected to review other lab members publications. Again, if it were the case that you did not do this before the summer, then it would be fair to ask you to do some of this during your last summer. In addition, working on articles usually gives you ideas for new work of your own.
Now, a professor who does consider graduate students as some sort of indentured servant and gains personal profit from it is violating academic custom, their contract with the university, and the law. In this order, the chair, the dean, and the university's legal department should be the addressees of a complaint. Sometimes, there is a position such as a graduate student ombudsman that serves as a honest broker. When you complain, you should be clear on what you want to achieve. If you were doing forced labor, you could look for just compensation. If you were mistreated, you could look for an apology by the university and a prevention from this happening again. You could also of course find a lawyer (if you cannot find on, then you have no case) and use the courts directly. Going directly to the courts would make it difficult for you to find a job in academia.
As human beings, we *all* have a difficult time to separate emotions from facts. Maybe you should talk to your lab-mates or to previous graduate students. Whether there is a pattern of mistreatment of graduate students or not will make a lot of difference in how others will see your situation.
TLTR: Whether you were treated illegally cannot be determined by the data you provided us.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: You really have to look at your contract with the university. In the US there is no standard grad student contract. For example, some universities have a policy that the admin guarantees grad student salaries for 9 months, but that summers are discretionary, and if the advisor decides to pay, it must be out of his/her own grants. Other universities guarantee 2 years of salary, but after that your salary is contingent on teaching every semester, which in practice means no summer salary. The teaching itself can be furthermore guaranteed (as in you are guaranteed a teaching slot) for 2-3 more years, but after that, you have to scavenge for teaching gigs within the university.
The system makes it very easy to abuse and exploit grad students. An unscrupulous professor will use the thesis sing-off as leverage to exploit graduate students for free labor. In terms of legality: in many (most?) places graduate students are not even considered employees, as you are supposedly getting trained and given free tuition, which is just an accounting trick. So employment laws do not apply, e.g. you can't get unemployment insurance payments during summers, you don't have the usual (however minimal) protections of employees in the US, etc. If you go to HR, I bet the case will be bumped to the department chair.
From the information you provide and without reading your contract, my best bet is this: unethical yes, illegal no.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I think there are two questions at play:
1. Was what your advisor did illegal?
* There is no way anyone here can give a good answer (you would need to find a lawyer).
2. Can you file a complaint?
* You can certainly file a complaint with the university/department or even your state's labor board. Whether this will result in any action is another issue, but illegality is not a prerequisite for raising the issue with the appropriate higher-ups. In fact, legality is almost irrelevant to academic ethics in many contexts.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/07
| 5,446
| 22,691
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have just recently completed my Ph.D. Throughout my Ph.D., I’ve been fascinated and motivated by incremental and focused questions that would show up in my research, either imposed by my advisors, or ones that I would figure out need addressing. I genuinely enjoyed getting into the nitty-gritty details of my research. I believe that this attitude has let me thrive in a Ph.D. program and produce good research.
But, as a result, I feel like I’m driven by curiosity only when I have a specific question to tackle (like, “*I wonder what happens when I set this parameter to...*”), but I have no interest in the big-picture questions of science or vision for my future research (like, “*How do machines learn?*”). I think I haven’t yet developed interest or skills in finding such a vision. My Ph.D. advisor has his long-term goal for his research group, but being his Ph.D. student, I never cared about or was (directly) influenced by that goal. In some sense, I couldn’t care less about what my advisor’s lab wants to develop long-term. All I genuinely cared about was another hurdle in my narrow slice and the tiny curiosities that would show up along the way.
I would like to stay in academia and apply for a TT position after my postdoc. Professor <NAME> mentioned in [this talk](https://youtu.be/Unzc731iCUY?t=2687s), that the TT applicants have 5 minutes to convey their vision and their contributions to the hiring committee. I think that I would fail that test if I were to apply right now. I would like to develop that vision, and be able to one day say: “*My lab aims to understand how machines learn.*” (just an example).
I’m looking for concrete advice on actions that I can take in the coming months/years to slowly start developing this big-picture interest in my research field. Is it normal that I don’t have that interest yet? When should such interest start to emerge in me for me to be a successful professor and researcher?<issue_comment>username_1: So, full disclosure, I'm a PhD student still and I'm still learning and growing myself. But, I think I kind of might have an answer here. Your research is driven by (in part) personal curiosity. You thrive in those details of whatever your interests are, and you have little to no interest in the so called `big picture' questions that scientists ostensibly are kept up late at night over.
Okay. That's great!! Why deviate from that path? I myself am the same way. Last semester (or two semesters ago now, I guess), I took PHD logic of policy inquiry at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In it, we read <NAME>, whose book consisted of discussing the process of revolutionary development in science. To be simplistic, we essentially have two kinds of scientists: those who take a Bird's Eye view of their discipline (how do machines learn, how does facial recognition software influence popular opinion, how do Black Holes prove some physics theorem), and people with very very focused views of their discipline (How to do donor selection for synthetic controls in econometrics, how can we use LASSO or other ML ideas to better predict counterfactuals, how do we asymptotically justify using this penalty for this estimator...)
My point is, there is no right way to play. Both paths will lead you to your intended experience. `Big picture' work always **builds** on the "small picture" work. It is partly by that process, argues Kuhn, that we make advances in science on those big picture questions, yes, by having people who dedicate their lives to big picture questions, but ALSO by having researchers like you who are very narrowly interested in developing part of your field.
I'm a public policy PHD student. Most of my cohort have very specific substantive interests (labor market policy, housing, etc.). But I don't! I'm an econometrician, a statistician who's interested in methods used for causal analysis of policy. I'm not married at all to any field or set of topics, I have papers in the works in policy, criminology, marketing science, and other areas. What I'm married to, is econometrics and advancing certain causal models in my field and to anyone who would find them useful. Even if I'm not working on some big picture question, my work and skillset is still valuable,
So, my advice to you is to explore your curiosities. Make them your own, and publish great work in great journals with it. It's perfectly okay not to be really into big picture questions as a matter of profession. You like what you like, and that's okay. Academia is about finding your own path. Find your own path, and make no apologies for your work not sounding as earth-shattering as other people's. I guarantee you, even if your work isn't "how do machines learn", the quality work you do *will* be used by the people who are answering that question, to eventually have those pathbreaking discoveries.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As per the usual, there's every reason you should ask your advisor this question if you have a good relationship. I'm due to start a TT job at an R2 this upcoming fall, and I'm now trying to leave 15+ minutes of every meeting asking my current boss questions about how he approaches the work.
>
> Is it normal that I don’t have that interest yet?
>
>
>
It's not unusual to feel like you don't have an entire program ready to sell at the end of your PhD. But you've correctly identified that if intend to try landing a job as a TT professor at a research institution you need to start developing a program and pitches.
>
> I have no interest in the big-picture questions of science or vision for my future research
>
>
>
I'd urge you to think really carefully about this. If you want to be a professor at a research university, your highest priority responsibility will be articulating plans for future research and then executing them both yourself and with students. Hiring committees want to be convinced you have a program and some vision, because a primary component of that responsibility is pumping out significant numbers of project ideas for decades.
If you're in STEM, there are multiple times more remunerative career paths available to you than trying to become a professor. Those have less intellectual flexibility, but still a lot of interesting problems with potential for intellectual contribution. I'm not trying to put you off your professional plans or goals, but think this might be a useful perspective. I just ran this gauntlet and got a TT job at the last moment, and still have doubts whether it'll end up having been the best decision.
>
> I’m looking for concrete advice on actions that I can take in the coming months/years to slowly start developing this big-picture interest in my research field.
>
>
>
In short, start practicing. Just off the top of my head:
1. Start reading your senior colleagues' research statements. In mathematics I usually find a short version on their websites. A minority of professors also post their job search materials, so you can get your hands on what they actually sent to a committee that way.
2. Draft a research statement yourself. The act of trying to do so is, at least in my experience, initially frustrating. That's because it forces you to think and articulate a program that's distinctive from your advisor's. I'm shocked you didn't have to do this for postdoctoral positions, but maybe that's just a difference in subject culture. This takes time away from your research, but it's worthwhile to have drafts of these things well in advance. You can send drafts to your mentors for feedback months before due dates that way.
3. Develop spoken "elevator pitches" for your research at lengths of 1 minute, 3-4 minutes, and if you like 5 minutes. You can also do this for individual projects, but your entire program is also useful. These are useful at conferences anyway, and explicitly doing the exercise should sharpen your ability to contextualize your research. Get feedback from your friends.
4. Talk to your advisors and mentors about this question. Also about writing grants, which is highly related. Coming up with a pitch for your program that is unique and interesting is not easy, but that is your goal. Your colleagues have distinct perspectives on developments in your general area of research, and probably even hiring more generally. They're not going to be able to tell you what to do, but can be very useful at helping you identify your strengths (to emphasize) and weaknesses (to distract from).
5. Start thinking about and integrating motivation about your broader program, or at least pieces of your broader program, into all of your research talks. This will also improve your talks. One thing I notice about greener PhD students' talks (my own included for a few years) is that they often include too little vision at the beginning. If you're aiming to become a permanent researcher, part of your goal is to get as many of your colleagues as possible to remember you, what research you do, and why they should care about it. You don't need to be saving the universe, but view and present yourself and your research as consistently shedding light on distinct and interesting aspects of the fields it interacts with.
6. Start paying particular attention to the programmatic elements of the talks colleagues in your area give at conferences and colloquiums. That both gives you context about how other people are thinking about things, but also gives you the chance to think about how to stand out against your colleagues who are going to be on the market around the same time as you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: So like other answers, I definitely recommend talking to your advisor if you have a good relationship with them. I'll also echo @avid's comment that this is largely a "marketing spiel" in the sense that you don't in any way have to limit yourself to the "vision" that you label yourself with. Nevertheless, a large portion of the work of a TT position is some form of "marketing" (I recommend calling it "getting other people excited about what you're excited about" instead). **The benefit of having a good, pithy explanation helps communicate what you're excited about and what you want to work on.**
My context is that I just accepted a TT position at an R2 starting next year in computer science in the US. I had the benefit of a failed search last year, so I didn't have to start this year's job search with a lot of work already behind me. **It's OK for the development of this vision to feel exceedingly slow and difficult.** Taking the time to actually think about this vision was *really* hard (my research statement was a high priority for weeks, and there were several times it was substantially re-written with advisor and mentor feedback). But the benefit is that it's a line of thinking I've got developed for the next 5-ish years.
First, I think it's important to understand *what* you're developing, exactly. From the tone you have (and the example of "how machines learn") I think you might be looking for too grand of a vision and intimidated by that prospect. I found [this article by <NAME>ue](https://yisongyue.medium.com/checklist-of-tips-for-computer-science-faculty-applications-9fd2480649cc) very helpful when working on my research statement, and I'd like to highlight two paragraphs in particular.
>
> **An Interesting “Medium-Level” Agenda.** It’s relatively easy to craft a good high-level agenda (e.g., AI for Science, AI for Social Good, Protein Modeling, Real-World Robotics, etc.). It’s also pretty easy to get into the details of your research (e.g., summarizing the key findings in individual papers). However, it is the medium-level story that often ties your research agenda together in a coherent and intellectually interesting way. The alternative is to jump straight from a relatively vague/abstract high-level story into what might feel like a laundry list of projects and results. **What are the key insights that propel you forward when you seek out new projects? Why are your previous results realizations or instantiations of these insights?** Based on my experience advising and evaluating faculty applicants, this is the most important thing to work on. (emphasis added)
>
>
>
And here's another, specifically about what that vision is valuable for, which can help you evaluate whether a vision is good or not:
>
> **Frame Future Work in Terms of PhD Thesis Topics.** A heuristic I like to follow is to list future directions that can be compelling thesis topics. The supporting sentences in the paragraph on each future direction might then point to specific results (e.g., specific papers you might write). Don’t present future directions that are scoped at the scale of individual papers, as those don’t really support your medium-level agenda.
>
>
>
In other words, **if you have a vision that can inspire 3-4 dissertations, which is certainly an order of magnitude work larger than a paper** (at least in my domain, yours may be different), **you have a good vision.** "How machines learn" is too broad - I'd categorize it as one of those "high-level agendas".
I was able to develop my vision (medium-level research agenda) over several conversations with other researchers, my advisor and mentor, and even conversations with friends and family (they often have good ways to phrase insights that are a lot less academic).
I'd also say that my advisor's mid-level vision(s) were ones I agreed with and saw the value of but certainly wouldn't have made them my own, so being lukewarm about your current advisor's vision doesn't count you out either. I certainly borrowed big ideas from my advisor and his work, but I had a chance to re-prioritize those values and set them in a different light.
You mentioned you enjoy those "tiny curiosities" - I think those are the starting grounds of a mid-level vision. Why do those curiosities strike your curiosity? Why do you find them interesting and others might not? What about your background or your interests makes you well-suited to tackle those? That unifying theme isn't necessarily some type of application or theory - it could be a method, if you focus on why that method (not just the algorithm) is 'interesting'. Also, I think I used about half of my work in my PhD in support of my vision - it doesn't have to encompass all of your (previous or future) work. If you can write a statement that feels like a good way to sum up a sizable portion of the work you've done so far and leaves room for future work, then that would seem like a good vision.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Answering this as a new assistant professor: I agree this is a real challenge! It may help to note that this is a very good problem to have: it's much easier to start from specific technical expertise and "zoom out" to a broad research agenda than the other way around. This happens all the time among more established researchers -- it's fundamental to managing a research project and getting funding.
To do the process of zooming out, I think there are two components: First, establish your expertise; and second, establish your agenda.
### Establish your expertise
To find your expertise, you can start with your individual paper abstracts. What does each abstract say to sell the paper? Additionally, what are several key results -- such as an experiment or buzz phrase (e.g., you are 10x faster than some other technique, first to do XYZ, etc.) that you can lift from that paper? Do this for all of your papers, and you may find a pattern. Are there several distinct lines of work? Are there common themes? "cluster" these into groups and identify what do your contributions mean *in aggregate* for someone who has never heard of your research before.
Then, try to condense this to a simple sentence like **I work on X** or **I'm an expert in applying Y to Z.** Typically, it is as simple as the jump from "I studied how to use nanofunks to create foobars with applications to thingamajigs" to "I am an expert on nanofunks and foobars". Once you have a pattern of important results in an area, experts will trust you to know some things about that area, what are the typical techniques, and what things are often difficult and lead to unsolved problems.
This process can even be surprising -- sometimes as researchers, when stuck in the details, we don't fully recognize our own strengths and expertise in an area. For example, maybe you have published 3 papers in a general topic X. That fact alone often makes you stand out quite a bit compared to other researchers, and you are now (surprise!) an expert in topic X.
### Establish your agenda
Second, you need to establish your agenda. This is a similar process to before, but this time, focus on the *future work* and unsolved problems for each of your research papers or projects. What are some things that would be nice to have? Often you will have a dozen ideas for each project, and you can list these out. Then, how do these fit into a common theme that might take 5-10 years of work to play out?
Try to be interdisciplinary about writing down your future work. Compared to establishing your expertise, future work should be ambitious, collaborative, and exciting. You can, for instance, introduce future work in an area you have never worked on before (e.g. applying thingamajigs to health science), if you think it ties in to the general agenda you lay out and sounds fun to do. You can also list some future work that is specific to your area, but I find researchers are much more likely to get excited about general collaborations.
When thinking about your broader agenda, it's also helpful to identify any common themes in your *research process* (rather than just research content) that distinguish you. What is your "secret sauce" that you can apply to *any* area and generate interesting ideas? For example, do you think more theoretically about problems -- looking for the foundational principle behind a particular phenomenon? Or do you prefer to start from a concrete application? Do you like to do data-driven research? Do you like to work incrementally building on past results, or do you like to pursue broad crazy ideas?
### Other suggestions
This sort of process is extremely iterative; you won't get it right the first time. It will take successive refinements and lots of conversations. So it's critical to do lots of things to broaden your exposure to other researchers. For example:
* Take every opportunity to interact with others in your department;
* Get feedback on a draft of your research statement;
* Attend conferences in your field;
* Attend talks, especially those *not* in your area; and
* Talk to experts and mentors to hear how they think about broad agenda and the future of your field.
Don't be afraid to ask the big questions, like: [What are the important problems of your field?](https://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/YouAndYourResearch.html)
Think about other researchers in your area or related areas. What are they doing that is most impactful and most relevant to the broader community?
At the end of the day, there is no substitute for practice: practice speaking, practice giving your 5-minute elevator pitch, and practice writing -- ideally write a bit every day. Research problems can be very specific, but broader ideas can only take shape by being refined and simplified over time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I’m looking for concrete advice on actions that I can take in the coming months/years to slowly start developing this big-picture interest in my research field. Is it normal that I don’t have that interest yet? When should such interest start to emerge in me for me to be a successful professor and researcher?
>
>
>
We have research on this! From [Huang et al, 2022](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457322002114), we know that successful researchers are able to **exploit** *academic hotspots*, while **exploring** *emerging topics* and *combinatorial innovation* more during their early career and exploring *diverse interests* during their later career, putting less emphasis on exploiting *mature topics*.
So if you want to hone your research acumen, you should learn how to explore emerging topics and combinatorial innovation -- that is, what are new and interesting trends in your field, and what are some unexpected ways in which your field combines with other fields?
Note that knowing what is *new* in your field requires you to know what is *old* in your field, and also requires deep curiosity about what everyone else in your field is doing. For example, you should eventually know who the few most interesting researchers in your area of interest are, and roughly what they are doing, and why they are pursuing their particular area of interest and not another. The granular, *social* understanding of your field is what your subconscious processes so that you can eventually carve out your own niche. And when you say:
>
> My Ph.D. advisor has his long-term goal for his research group, but being his Ph.D. student, I never cared about or was (directly) influenced by that goal. In some sense, I couldn’t care less about what my advisor’s lab wants to develop long-term.
>
>
>
that is a significant red flag (unless you've developed your own peculiar vision -- but you haven't!). Every other researcher you meet has a research strategy, and the more you learn about others' research strategies, the more you are able to craft and articulate your own (even if as examples of what *not* to do).
Here are some specific questions you can ask yourself to hone your research vision:
* Are there specific papers or journals I cite disproportionately often in my work? (That's a sign of an emerging focus of your interest, and is easy and objective to determine.)
* What are the key terms in my field, and how would I define them and why they're important? (For example, when I read your question, I immediately googled for "explore / exploit scientist" -- which tells you a great deal about how I understand scientific innovation.)
* Who are the most interesting people in the field, and what are they doing, and *why*?
* Why do I care about [parameter I'm optimizing]? What's the range of possible improvements I expect to get? If it's a large range, why is that parameter so crucial? If it's small, should I really be bothering with it?
* If I wanted to brainwash attract a PhD student to help me on a project, what would I ask them to work on? How would I pitch it to them?
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/07
| 1,070
| 4,617
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to be a researcher in a field of economics but with emphasis on philosophy. The field of philosophical (argumentative) economics is, in my opinion, not in the limelight these days; however, a few reputable journals still exist.
I wrote a manuscript and submitted it to one of these journals which then resulted in desk rejection. This is not the problem at all but in his response the editor has written that **the paper provides no results**... Which, though, **true**, is the thing **many other papers** *published in this specific journal* **do not provide**. In philosophical economics, we mostly see a section for *implications* instead of section for *results*... To me, the editorial rejection r seems to be too weird, especially because papers without results are relatively common in the whole field.
**What should I make of such an answer?**
* The editor rejected the paper based on my background (low rep institution)?
* The paper was written so poorly that the editor did not want to lose time with it?
* Something has changed over years and this journal tries to attract only classical empirical IMRAD (Introduction-Methodology-Results-Discussion)?<issue_comment>username_1: Of course the problem is that the answer by the editor is not very informative, so that neither you nor we can know what exactly went on. Some possibilities are that:
1. The editor read the paper and came to the conclusion that it isn't good enough or doesn't fit the journal for a number of reasons taken together, but writing them down precisely would have taken too much time, so they wrote something very short. (As editor I don't always take the time to write down my reasons in full detail if it takes too much time, even though I try in principle to make it transparent for the author why the paper was rejected. Note in particular that desk rejection reasons don't need to be as detailed as requests for revision, as the editor doesn't want to see an improved version.)
2. "Which is, though, true, but the thing is that many other papers published in this specific journal do not provide results as well." Chances are that every paper is different from any other paper in some respect, and that the editor could defend why certain papers that you think have the same problem are actually better than yours. However, the editor may not want to enter into this kind of detailed discussion.
3. I recently came in as new editor of a journal, and I do occasionally reject papers for reasons where one could point at earlier papers published in the same journal that could be criticised in the same way. This may be because (1) my standards are different from those of the previous editor, but also (2) because something that was fine at a certain point in time (for example because it contributed to a discussion that was "hot" at that time, or it was so good/original in some other respects that a certain weakness could have been tolerated) is no longer fine now in my view. The latter can happen even without a change of editor.
>
> The editor rejected the paper based on my background (low rep institution)?
>
>
>
Not impossible, but not likely given that there are many explanations that wouldn't show the editor in such bad light.
>
> The paper was written so poorly that the editor did not want to lose time with it?
>
>
>
Possible, though as editor I would say this explicitly (in a hopefully somewhat more polite way).
>
> Something has changed over years and this journal tries to attract only classical empirical IMRAD?
>
>
>
I have no idea what IMRAD is but see my item 3.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I generally caution my students against the (tempting) argument "there are superficially similar (or weaker) papers in this journal, hence my paper should get accepted". There is tremendous confirmation bias in this, since you *do not know* how many submissions "without results" get rejected. Peer review is a noisy process, if the journal gets lots of submissions of papers of a certain type some of them are bound to be accepted, *even if most of the editorial board* disagrees with this. Your statement that no-results papers "are on the decline" indicates to me that most of the editorial board nowadays wants to see them gone, and they only make exceptions for special cases (of which your paper was presumably not one).
Honestly, academia in general starts making much more sense once one internalises that all of our decisions are made subjectively by humans with non-identical preferences and experiences.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/07
| 1,012
| 3,764
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I'm currently doing my first postdoc in the US on an F1 OPT (in Astronomy) and I decide to apply for either an EB1A or an EB2, I understand that it would show my intent to immigrate making me ineligible for a J1 visa. Because of this, any future postdoc position would need to sponsor me for an H1B visa (assuming that my EB1A was denied or my EB2 has a really long wait time). Given this, will this reduce my chances of getting a second or third postdoc with a university because they'll have to sponsor me for an H1B as opposed to a J1?
Thanks!
P.S. Here are some examples of universities that state that they will sponsor an H1B for a postdoc if they have a pending green card application with USCIS: <https://research.upenn.edu/postdocs-and-students/postdocs-foreign-nationals/> and <https://postdocs.stanford.edu/postdoc-admins/how-quick-links/request-visas-postdoctoral-scholars><issue_comment>username_1: My institution will occasionally sponsor H1B for postdocs under specific circumstances. My experience as a PI is that the H1B visa process is complex, slow, and expensive, and I would only consider it if there are no other options. There are a number of fees required that must be paid by the PI and are not allowable on some research grants. Also admin staff does not like H1B as they don't always have the bandwidth to process them. Finally H1B hires in some fields require a higher salary than the postdoc standard, which is problematic in terms of equity.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally, people decide on who to hire based on qualification and match to the project (if applicable), and only then worry about getting that person a visa (if applicable). I imagine that in nearly all cases where we hired foreigners, we did not actually know which visa they will require, and it played no role in the discussion either.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: [General response]
Most committees will 'focus' on your **fit** and **relevance**, rather than your *circumstances*. In this context, relevance include your qualifications and relevant skillset. In essence, what are you bringing to the table.
However, if there are *two candidates* who meets the fit and relevance almost in the same way, one can't rule out opting for the candidate that does not require 'visa'. Each situation is *unique* though.
>
> I understand that it would show my intent to immigrate making me ineligible for a J1 visa
>
>
>
Your understanding is spots on. J1 becomes extremely difficult (not completely ruled out). Agreed, J-1 shouldn't be attempted when EB route is in progress.
[Directed response (might extend outside Academia scope)]
In the last 6 months or so, there seems to be an (*unprecedented*) ['fast' turnaround time for approval of I-140 for certain EB1 and EB2](https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/). Nonetheless, each application is uniquely assessed and decided on; there's no blanket certainty.
If your current host is amenable to it, you should give *EB-1B for Outstanding professors and researchers*. The average turnaround is looking up: I-140 approval within 1 to 6 months.
*EB-2A Advanced Degree || EB-2B Exceptional Ability* are not far off as well: 2 to 8 months.
For how long the current 'fastness' will be, no one knows. There seems to be a directive though.
What you might go for though is the **EB2-NIW**. From your question, it's evident you already know much about the EB route.
PS: [for noting: Premium Service](https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/how-do-i-request-premium-processing)
*As of Jan. 30, 2023, all pending and initial Form I-140 petitions under an E21 NIW classification are eligible to request premium processing*
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/07
| 2,917
| 12,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: Whether in history, math, computer science, physics, law or other sciences can someone without a doctorate or an undergraduate degree do research in any of them? I am an undergraduate student in math and I am interested in other sciences as well but I have found some difficulty getting my degree. I think my memory and problem-solving ability are not bad; I think they are okay. I thought of a path for myself to have at university, but eventually I figured out that I think I do not want it. I want to contribute in sciences.<issue_comment>username_1: The answer to the literal question you ask is "yes". If you have a good idea and follow it to a good conclusion and it's interesting enough to attract attention in the field then you have "done research".
In practical terms, without formal education in a field you will not be able to do "research": because you will not know what is known. Even knowing that, "memory and problem solving ability" may not be sufficient to address the unknowns and create new knowledge.
It's hard for me to imagine how you might carry out significant research without the basic knowledge you get at university.
You can always contribute as a [citizen scientist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science),
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There have been examples, especially in Mathematics, of "amateurs" being consistently productive. But I cannot think of an example were the amateur was not accomplished in the field in which they made their living. The "amateur" scientist is usually working in a field where no extensive knowledge or equipment is needed, such as graph theory where some questions are very difficult, but an answer is not based on the work by others. Some scientific work is now crowd-sourced. Think for example of the bird population counters which are local bird-watchers or amateur astronomers who occasionally find a new comet.
If you have trouble getting a degree, you probably have no future as an "amateur" researcher, as you would be lacking the training and the knowledge, but sometimes you can still help with research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: An undergraduate degree gives you background understanding in a lot of different areas. It's a foundation to build all your other knowledge on.
A PhD is a specialized degree in training for research. It includes learning both how to conduct research as well as training in the academic norms in your field, such as how to communicate your work with others. If you can't communicate your work, there's little point in doing it besides self-satisfaction.
While *technically* you may not need a particular degree to do research, research is *exceptionally* difficult. Many people *with all the training* still struggle. No one should expect themselves to be able to be successful without the training. I'm not saying there are no counterexamples, I'm saying that a few counterexamples out of billions of humans is not a very convincing argument.
I would focus on at least what is blocking you from getting an undergraduate degree. Without an undergraduate degree, your job prospects will be very limited. I don't think you should assume that the world on the other side is any easier.
Life-long academic jobs are extremely limited for people *with* degrees. For the vast majority, without a degree you aren't even approaching consideration.
Even so, there are certainly jobs where you can contribute to the overall production of research without advanced degrees. Many of these jobs come with low pay but they are absolutely critical for research to function. Animal care technicians are one example.
In industry, there may be more opportunities but a lack of degrees will still limit you. I worked in industry R&D for awhile and many of my coworkers did not have bachelors degrees (most at had at least a 2-year degree, though). This tended to limit their responsibilities, though: their job titles were typically "Technician" and they would work under the guidance of someone with at least a bachelors degree and some years experience. They would have input in conversations about research directions, but most of the job was following instructions and performing repetitive tasks. Certainly many of the people with those jobs were capable of doing more, especially as they gained experience, but it was difficult to advance without a degree. It was often fun work, though, and people could see directly the impact of their work in products used in health care, including their own family members.
In the US, some more technical jobs are available with a short 2-year training program. That would include histology (that is, preparing tissues on microscope slides for observation; most jobs are in hospitals doing diagnosis, but research positions exist as well), counseling and nursing jobs (again, these jobs are typically focused towards patient care, but these roles are needed in research administration as well), various mechanic jobs (relevant to maintenance of machines used in research), etc. Again, these are not the traditional "academic research" careers, but they are important ways to contribute.
All of my examples have biomedical research in mind, because that's the area I've worked in, but if you want to explore this or other areas, I would try to get in contact with people currently working in that area, and ask them what sorts of jobs people do with or without a degree in that field. That may help you find a target that suits you. I suspect you'll have more opportunities in areas where research is a *group effort* among many people, because those areas are often in need of extra hands, whereas in areas where research is primarily an individual effort, you would need to rely on your own personal credentials and history of research output to be funded, and you won't be able to obtain those without following the traditional education path.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: This depends, to some extent, about what you think "do research" means.
If your meaning is that a person that "does research" holds a tenure-track faculty position where a certain amount of their time is for research endeavors, then I think there are some obstacles, at least one of them may be insurmountable. Many job descriptions demand an advanced degree -- a PhD or equivalent. Establishing equivalence to a PhD for someone with no advanced degree may well be a bridge too far for many university HR departments, who may simply refuse to hire you. Deans and Trustees may also have issues with the idea. Funding organizations may also need to buy in. IMO, the goal of establishing a career doing completely independent research funded by granting institutions will be difficult to reach without a PhD.
However, if "do research" means sort of a spare time side gig where you do some work and get it published, this is probably feasible.
To others "do research" might simply mean "earning a career while working in a lab" (as opposed to directing a lab). This is also approachable. There are certainly lab managers without advanced degrees that have a ton of responsibility -- but the ultimate authority about what research they get to do often belongs to someone else.
Further, a lot of surprising career directions can happen in industrial environments, where your job history and performance can *eventually* get you placed where you want to be, but you wouldn't necessarily be applying for such a position -- they just happen because you're the natural person to take on the role (because you've made yourself that person). This isn't a very predictable career path, though, it just happens sometimes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You mentioned law specifically. As a practicing lawyer (Nevada) that does some academic research on the side I can address that part directly.
Theoretically, the answer is yes, you can do research in law without needing any qualifications whatsoever. Arguably, the barriers to entry are in fact lower than many other fields since (despite the way it can seem sometimes), most academic legal researchers and most judges actually make some effort to write in a way that is broadly accessible.
However, as a practical matter, the answer is generally no. If you do not have some sort of relevant credentials, you will find it very difficult to get the attention of anyone in the legal academic research community.
Notably, I mean "some sort of relevant credentials" somewhat broadly in the legal field and does not necessarily mean a J.D.. <NAME> for instance is a writer and editor who has made something of an impact in legal academia. I have personally cited his work more than once in more than one law review journal article. However, while he does not hold a J.D., he does hold an MBA and while he absolutely does work that can be called legal research, I do not believe he has published in any traditional law review journals. But while it does not necessarily have to be a J.D., I suspect someone without some sort of serious credentials will find it very difficult to break into legal research in a meaningful way.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Yes, science is all about falsifiability and peer review.
If you practice sound, reproducible science and can communicate it well, then that is legitimate research which is to be taken seriously.
Degrees technically don't matter.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: To use a sports analogy, I guess if a kid in college started playing basketball for the first time and demonstrated that he had what it took to go to the NBA be being physically big and strong enough, and he was skilled enough, then yeah, he's going to The League. But I'm pretty sure this has never happened. College teams get the best high school talent, and the NBA the best college talent. In other words, your competitors have been playing literally since they were like 4 years old.
In the academic case, people have usually been in their fields in some stripe since they were 18 or in their early 20s. They've spent and spend all day thinking about their with (sometimes), almost always with the backing of a professional university and years of training to help them do research. They think about these things in the shower, while they walk their dogs, while they get their nails done, it is literally what makes some researchers so good at their craft, years of training and experience.
If you can compete with them without having a degree (if you wanna go for tenure), then go ahead, but it's super unlikely. Presumably other avenues of doing research exist, it just wouldn't appear in academic journals more often than not.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: I think having no undergraduate degree is *really* pushing it for STEMS. I don't know about history or law since they are softer fields but I do not imagine it is much different. Once you finish your undergraduate degree you realize how little it actually teaches you. It's not even the theoretical or practical fundamentals.
Even having an undergraduate degree would be like an elementary school student learning the four basic arithmetic operations. You cannot expect them put it to practical use by doing something like filling out tax forms, and research would be more like understanding and writing tax law.
I have only a Bachelors and assist in private research funded by a private patron. In this position, I have participated on research led by someone without a degree and led by someone with a PhD. Let me tell you, the difference is very pronounced. The PhD doesn't know everything they need; It is research after all, so you can imagine the gaps in knowledge and questionable approaches of the other. There's virtually no low hanging fruit remaining.
>
> I want to contribute in sciences.
>
>
>
From my above real world example, it is clearly possible to *do* research without an undergraduate degree. You just need money.
Thus, the primary barrier to the "doing" part is how to get funding when you have no qualifications or history. I hope you're really charismatic and meet the right people, but I'm guessing you don't really want to be a snake oil salesman which is basically what you would be selling with no qualifications, experience, or history.
But merely *doing* is not the same as *doing effectively*, and actually *contributing*? In my experience, I think you might be asking too much for too little without an undergraduate degree, or even without a masters. Or in the absence of a degree, without in-depth, long-term practical experience in what it is you are researching on.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: Yes. One does not need even expensive equipment. It is about the content you produce. In my university in Slovakia, every doctoral student is expected to publish one paper without any help from a supervisor. To lower the burden, one may publish in other languages than English.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/05/08
| 1,105
| 4,430
|
<issue_start>username_0: The following didn't directly happen to me, but it came close. I'm using first person anyway for clarity.
A paper is submitted to a journal for which I'm an editor. During review, it's noticed that the paper is plagiarized. The plagiarism is relatively minor and benign: only a few paragraphs are plagiarized, the plagiarized text is in the Introduction and involves only non-crucial background information, and the text was rewritten to the extent that it's not detectable by automated plagiarism checkers. But the text is still plagiarized (see edit below for example).
The paper has several authors, one junior (an undergraduate) and several senior (professors). It's difficult to believe that any of the senior authors would have done this, so a guess is that the junior author wrote the offending text without realizing that this kind of rewriting is still plagiarism, and the senior authors didn't notice.
Clearly the journal should do something, but what? The obvious thing to do is to alert the corresponding author and let them handle it, but 1) there's a nonzero chance that they are the one that is responsible for the plagiarism, and 2) I am concerned about potential damage to the junior author's career, since this will likely alert all the authors to the plagiarism & potentially also trigger institutional academic misconduct policies, and the paper looks like a good piece of work otherwise.
**Edit**: Here's an example of how the plagiarized text looks. Take this sentence from the above:
>
> The plagiarism is relatively minor and benign: only a few paragraphs are plagiarized, the plagiarized text is in the Introduction and involves only non-crucial background information, and the text was rewritten to the extent that it's not detectable by automated plagiarism checkers.
>
>
>
And the rewrite looks like:
>
> Only a few paragraphs are plagiarized, and in a non-malicious way: the affected text is located in the Introduction, providing background information to the problem, and was paraphrased to the extent that plagiarism detectors are unable to spot it.
>
>
>
The ideas involved are the same, some distinctive phrases are reused, and the text is immediately recognizable if you also have access to the original; but it's substantially rewritten and difficult to detect.<issue_comment>username_1: My suggestion is that you assume the best and that, assuming it was plagiarized, it may have been unintentional, either because they just missed it, or had a different definition of plagiarism as, sadly, many do.
If the information presented is general knowledge in the field, then it can often be repeated without citation and without plagiarizing. In math, for example, the work of the ancients is general knowledge (among mathematicians), so we don't need to cite Euclid and Pythagoras for everything. Also, the plot of *Les Miserables* could probably be treated as general knowledge.
However, as an editor, you are correct to take a stricter view. I suggest informing the corresponding author of your concerns with a suggestion that they need more citations (or whatever) to bring the work to your standards. If they object to that, suggest that you will likely desk reject the work as it is.
You don't need to assume that it was intentional and you don't need to make accusations. You may, however, need the paper to be improved.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The journal should have a clear policy for what constitutes plagiarism, and what the consequences should be based on different scenarios. For example, the IEEE provides a lot of guidance for how such cases should be handled.
<https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/plagiarism/index.html>
For the IEEE, they offer this guidance concerning paraphrasing:
<https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/plagiarism/id-plagiarism.html>
>
> Paraphrasing
>
>
>
>
> Paraphrasing will always be a difficult area to adjudicate. Since plagiarism involves not only the unacknowledged reuse of some else's words but also someone's ideas, it is possible to render a properly paraphrased section of text and still be open to a charge of plagiarism if proper credit for the idea has not been given. Even so, we should be able to agree that changing only a few words or phrases or only rearranging the original sentence order of another author's work will be defined as plagiarism.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/08
| 394
| 1,802
|
<issue_start>username_0: My head of the department is not providing me any department stamp on the letter of recommendation stating that the letter head is enough and with it stamps are not used. I have no idea if it's correct or not but I didn't want to take chances with my LOR. Thus, my main doubt is regarding this. Do I require any stamp of the department on the letter of recommendation for masters, to verify it's authenticity?<issue_comment>username_1: Please do not be worried. You professor is right. You do not need stamps or markers or a public notary's endorsement.
I am in academia in the US and if we felt the need to verify a recommendation letter, we would just (1) look up the writer and (2) contact the writer directly. Mostly, receiving a letter from an academic email address containing a pdf with an institutional letter head establishes prima facie credentials.
When I write invitation letters for conferences so that participants can get a visa for the US, I do exactly that: an email with institutional letterhead emailed as a pdf.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I very often write recommendations for European Universities, especially Germany and the Netherlands, and **no, no kind of stamps are required**, only proper letterhead and contact information.
Note that in most systems the student does not see the recommendation letter. The recommender usually sends the recommendation directly via email or by a electronic system to the receiving institution.
For verification of authenticity, there are other methods if required, such as directly contacting the letter writer, or requiring specific measures like using institutional emails (no free email accounts are accepted). This is why the student is not directly part of this process in most cases.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/08
| 758
| 3,027
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to create a reading list around the life and works of a mathematician. But I need to choose the name to use as the title.
Take as an example the [Bibliography of N. Bourbaki](https://iecl.univ-lorraine.fr/files/2021/04/Liliane_beaulieu_biblio_bourbaki_20210427.pdf) by <NAME>
*"This document attempts to be an up to date commented bibliography of works pertaining to the history of the Bourbaki group of mathematicians and their mathematical production.
The bibliography is not mainly concerned with any other "Bourbakis", for example the eponymous military man, except as they may figure in a discussion of the group of mathematicians. "Bibliography" is to be understood here in the large sense of publications of all sorts including books, articles, web-sites, ephemereals and audio-visual materials. The sections on homonymous and eponymous entities mainly show how the name « Bourbaki » has a life of its own outside the history of our group.
My overriding concern is to make the bibliography as comprehensive as possible. At the same time it has been necessary to make some exclusions and restrictions in order to avoid irrelevance or redundancy. With some exceptions, I have ignored works which discuss the Bourbaki enterprise mainly in relation to reforms in the teaching of mathematics. Also excluded are the many articles or works on or by Bourbaki members when the focus is not explicitly and substantially on the activities of the group."*
This description fits perfectly for what I want to do but with another mathematician. What does not feel good is the title. I often use the name Bibliography in a more serious academic context, like the references in an article or so.
So here we are
>
> I need alternative names for "Bibliography" that fits the description above.
>
>
>
I just thought about **"Inventory"** or **"Reading list"**, something that reflects that in some sense it is informal. Let me know what you think.<issue_comment>username_1: The word *bibliography* is entirely appropriate here. Just because you are used to thinking of a bibliography as the reference section of a paper does not mean that this is the only meaning of the term (cf. meanings 2a and 3 [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bibliography), or 1 and 2 [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bibliography)).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would also say that bibliography is entirely fine, the key is in the preposition.
You titled the document you linked to as "Bibliography of Bourbaki". To me this indeed feels wrong, as I think it would imply works by Bourbaki. But note that this title is found nowhere in the actual file. Indeed your quote speaks about "bibliography of works pertaining to ...", which is something entirely different and in my opinion a very clear way of formulating it.
Maybe if that is to long for a title you could shorten it to "bibliography about Bourbaki" or "bibliography regarding Bourbaki" or something similar.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/08
| 1,467
| 6,056
|
<issue_start>username_0: For some background, I am currently an Australian PhD student in my 4th year. From reading posts on this site I have gradually noticed the differences between the content of my degree and of a PhD awarded in either the US or in Europe.
It appears as though an Australian PhD program is noticeably shorter than PhDs in other countries, with a maximum of 4 years of scholarship provided. Along with this, we are offered no coursework of any kind during our degree and completing a masters before starting is uncommon (at least in my field of engineering).
My primary question is how the structure of a PhD degree affects the perception of a graduate overseas? Are these degrees considered less important than longer degrees by any significant number of academics internationally?<issue_comment>username_1: After you graduate, you are judged on your publication record, ability to attract grants, etc.
In a US PhD, because you spend longer as a PhD student, you usually also build up more of a publication record. Furthermore, because you take courses, you usually also become knowledgeable in more subfields. Comparatively, in a Europe-style PhD, you master one subfield (the subject of your thesis), and one subfield only. So, in that sense, non-US PhDs are considered 'lesser'.
The corollary to this of course is that US PhDs take longer to complete, during which you are not very well-paid. You can still get postdocs with non-US PhDs, as well (if you are good).
**Edit:** in spite of all the downvotes, I got the above mostly from my Australian supervisors. Interpret as you will.
PS: One other thing they said is that thesis Masters are generally more prestigious than non-thesis Masters, aka Masters by coursework, if getting a Masters degree is something you're considering.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Degree equivalence is often determined by governmental departments or educational institutes (based on their internal rules).
For example in Australia: <https://www.education.gov.au/qualifications-recognition>
Qualifying for a position/grant/visa is not about "perception" but about how a body compares overseas courses to what they offer. This is likely a well defined set of comparisons and takes into account many different parameters and may vary from institute to institute inside a country.
As for personal "perception", that is individual and not something you can really theorise about.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I assume that you are asking about the perspective from the US and the EU. The following is the US perspective, although I lived for many years in the EU (Germany) and about 50% of my research was based in Tasmania, so I have some familiarity with people holding PhDs from both places.
Since the question is about perception, the only good way to answer it would be by doing a survey of US/European researchers and ask questions about the relative value (however defined) of a PhD from 'anonymous university' in Australia. I don't know of such a survey.
The words "US PhD" covers a wide range. You have the ivies, and R1s, and on the other end you have what are essentially mail-order PhDs. And within the highly-ranked universities, you of course have different professors with their individual reputations. In my experience, Australian states and European countries have fewer (no?) universities printing mail order PhDs. By which I mean that if you come from a relatively unknown university in Australia or the EU, I'd assume it's a real PhD, while if you come from a relatively unknown university in the US, I'd check if the degree is real. So the following assumes that everything else is being equal, e.g. reputation of the university, professor/advisor, etc.
People with recent European or Australian PhDs tend to be on the shallow/narrow end of having background knowledge of the history of the field, as compared with US PhDs. The keyword here is "tend": the two bell curves have a lot of overlap. I acknowledge that this could be specific to my field, Biology, where it's impossible to cover the whole historical and technical aspects, so knowledge in one end comes at the expense of the other. If this matters when hiring, it depends on the opinion of those doing the hiring. But I think that this perception exists.
In my experience hiring, people with PhDs from the US tend to be more experienced teachers. This does not mean that US PhDs are better teachers, but that, at least in my field, the perception exists.
Another perceived difference, and this is based on complaints from PIs in the US when talking about non-US postdocs, is the holiday culture of Europeans. For example, I did a postdoc at a US lab (R1 institution) led by an European PI, who hired lots of European postdocs. These postdocs would pretty much work 3-4 days a week, not answer email during nights or weekends, make every US holiday a long weekend (e.g. come back to the lab on Wed after every holiday falling on a Mon), then take off a full month during Christmas and pretty much disappear during the summers. In my experience, Australian PhDs fall in between European and US attitudes towards holidays. I lived in Germany for many years, and certainly appreciated this aspect of European culture. But in terms of perception, which is the OP's question, I think that it's a real issue.
As others have pointed out, what will get you an academic job are your publication record, your history with grants, your teaching experience, and your letters of reference. So there's little use in worrying about how your PhD is perceived just because you come from an Australian university. But you asked about perception, and that's my perspective after 20+ years as a US-based academic.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In my experience, academics switch very often between Australian and UK universities. In the UK, an Australian PhD is likely to be considered equivalent to a UK PhD.
In some other countries, academics may know little about Australian universities.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/09
| 1,505
| 6,401
|
<issue_start>username_0: I found two papers related to my current research (A published in 2021, and B published in 2023). More precisely, all authors of paper A & paper B are from the same institute. Actually, one person appears in the author list of both paper A and paper B, so I assume that all the authors of paper B are (supposed to be) aware of the presence paper A.
However, I checked the reference list of paper B (the one published later) and didn't find paper A there. Actually, some of the key ideas of paper B are based on paper A, and I would say the authors of paper B must cite paper A to provide the readers a full understanding of the research background. I cannot really understand why the authors of paper B "forgot" to mention paper A there. It happens sometimes that people didn't cite relevant work from other people due to unawareness, but how it could happen to the same person with only a two-year gap puzzles me a lot.
**I would like to ask: Is there any benefit for researchers to "hide" their previous research on purpose in any cases?**
Background: I published another paper with some overlap with paper A without being aware of its presence between the publication date of paper A and paper B. I also forgot to cite paper A in my own paper.<issue_comment>username_1: Despite the dates, they could have been originally submitted in parallel and one or both rejected from previous journals, possibly several of them. This sort of thing might happen when two groups are working in parallel within a lab: they are working from the same background, are communicating back and forth, but don't necessarily publish in the most logical order. The PI may feel it's important to keep them separate to ensure the separate authors get proper credit for their work. I'd say this is a mistake, though: probably one of the works should still cite the other, and these days the easiest solution would be to submit one as a preprint and cite it if wanting to avoid messiness around citing a separate unpublished manuscript. I could imagine a case where Manuscript A gets feedback that it's incomplete or doesn't advance things enough, so the authors are working on Manuscript B to extend it, while also hoping Manuscript A is still publishable by itself, and between varying delays and submissions Manuscript A ends up accepted and they keep Manuscript B in the form it was in rather than pulling out the parts from A after acceptance. This situation seems extremely lazy to me but also busy people make mistakes.
Possibly, the explanation is more innocent even if sloppy, but it's also possible something nefarious is going on: the work could have been intentionally re-published to inflate publication counts. Disclosing to journals/reviewers that a big chunk of the paper is already published might reduce the impact and cause rejection, since journals want to publish *new* things, not re-publish what already exists (and publication agreements might forbid them doing so). The overall lack of overlap in the authors adds to the suspicion to me, though. It's one thing to fail to cite *yourself*, it's another to fail to credit *your colleagues* working on the same problem. That, too, could have been an advisor's misguided attempt to let all their students obtain publications, if the other authors are all trainees.
In summary, I'd say it's not possible with the information provided to know what exactly happened here, but I can't think of an explanation that isn't at least partly lazy if not outright misconduct. Without a broader pattern, there's probably not anything you really need to *do* about it, besides doing your best with your own work.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You've given no proof that the researchers have "hidden" anything, so there's 0 reason so far to suspect mal-intent, and the characterization strikes me as hyperbolic. I think people get too hung up about this sometimes (not saying this time is one of them).
In my field, for example, there are at least three foundational papers on the "synthetic control method" in the econometrics literature. Abadie 2003, <NAME> and Hainmuller 2010 and ADH 2015. I've reviewed papers which use SCM before. I don't remember if each paper cited all of these, and to be honest I don't care. Someone usually cites Abadie's newer 2021 paper from Journal of Economic Literature, which naturally refers to his previous papers, so if an author even just cites that, in my book, there's no issue. Why? Because the literature they cite shows people one important reference where all the others may be found at, so it's okay. I don't demand an author present every single reference. [This paper](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.02.002), for example, is very very similar to one of the references they cite (Calderon 2015), but at various points in the publication process (I remember reading these as pre-prints/working papers), I think the works didn't even cite each other because the authors were simply unaware of them, which is okay. So, it's not totally unheard of that certain papers we think are relevant don't cite each other for different stages of the publication process.
I guess my point here is, ask yourself: "Is it **really** that important that the other paper be cited? Are their conclusions or results *necessary* for the other paper to function? If so, then I guess we can talk details, but barring that, if they don't go together like water and a hot summer day, then don't worry about if they cite the other paper or not.
Bryan above says to worry about doing the best with **your** work, and I agree. Just cite both papers in your work, assuming they're both relevant, and keep moving, no reason (again, barring more serious/well founded concerns) to worry too much about it. Not everyone needs to cite *every* single paper that's relevant to their work, otherwise lit reviews c/w/ould take 4 pages.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: To answer the actual question as to whether there is any benefit for researchers to "hide" their previous research on purpose: **Yes.**
Editors and referees at a journal generally prefer papers that they perceive to make a significant new contribution with respect to the existing literature. If this existing literature is not presented honestly, the contribution will look bigger than it really is.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/09
| 841
| 3,546
|
<issue_start>username_0: My peers told me, at least in the field of machine learning, it seems acceptable to upload your (draft) paper to Arxiv before submitting it to a conference. I am confused about how it does not contradict the double blind review practiced by many popular conferences.<issue_comment>username_1: The reality of review (I know this because my first ever peer review was for a single blind journal) *isn't* just whether it's double blind. The issue is "can the reviewer be objective". So, assuming you and the author aren't friends or coworkers or it's your advisor, you knowing the identity *shouldn't* matter or impact your results.
I read over another work by the people who's paper I reviewed. And I liked it! But, I still gave the exact same review I would've given otherwise when it came to their journal submission, even though I'd emailed the authors before.
Of course for specific conferences they'll have their own rules, but for journals at least, the issue is *objectivity*, not simply "do I know whose name it is".
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not in that field, but I have sometimes had review requests for venues that have double-blind review. In these instances I was told not to search for the paper online or otherwise deliberately find out who the authors were, but that I could still review even if I happened to have seen the paper before.
It may be that some venues make double-blind work by having a no-arXiv policy for submissions, in which case I would expect this to be very clearly specified in the guidelines to authors. But in my area arXiv is so ubiquitous that this just wouldn't be feasible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Conferences try their best to accommodate ArXiv submissions because of the reality of CS publications. For example, NeurIPS says:
>
> The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.
>
>
>
So you can upload your paper to ArXiv, but not say it's being reviewed at NeurIPS or it may be grounds for rejection.
Do reviewers look for paper authors? This is probably true in at least some cases. For at least some papers I reviewed I knew who the authors were, since I saw the paper presented at a talk/workshop/seminar. This is usually ok, as long as you believe that you can still offer an *impartial* review of the results. Ultimately, despite ML being a relatively large field, it consists of many small-ish communities (some with maybe 5-10 groups working on the topic), so if you've been a reviewer for a couple of years, you can guess with very high probability whose paper you're reviewing (I can almost immediately identify some authors based solely on their writing style).
Ultimately, the whole reviewing endeavor is a very large exercise in *trust*. We trust authors to not make up results; we trust reviewers to act ethically; stakeholders trust scientists to do the right thing (and not, say, cause the robot apocalypse).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/09
| 3,092
| 12,355
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm just starting my PhD, and during a sort of informal journal club, my professor told us that we should always try to read some new papers in our field (high energy physics, and general relativity and quantum cosmology; hep-th and gr-qc on arXiv). How does one *practically* do this? On the arXiv "new" section? Via the arXiv newsletter, with its terrible formatting?
I would be surprised if there aren't any "latest cool things in this particular area of physics" with easy-to-read formatting: an Instagram post, a podcast, or even just a rich text email.<issue_comment>username_1: As mentioned in a comment, I honestly find [Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/) the most useful. You can search by tag, i.e., `label:theoretical_nuclear_physics`, search the profiles of favorite authors in a field for the latest publications, or most cited ones, and explore new research fields using labels, etc.
Other than Google Scholar, I find [Research Gate](https://www.researchgate.net/) also a good source of information, it's sort of like the Facebook of Academia.
Moreover, it's good to create a list of the most popular journals in your field and utilize their web pages (for example Physical Review Letters is a good source of top-notch physics research).
Finally, if you like coding, you can even create your own web scraping tool!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: For arXiv, there's the subscription option to section of interest: [receive regular daily listings of the abstracts of new submissions by email](https://info.arxiv.org/help/subscribe.html)
* hep-th
* gr-qc
You create filters in your email client to pipe to a folder. You can check the folder periodically in your email.
PS: hopefully *subscription* isn't what you implied by *arXiv 'newsletter'*.
Kindly give @username_3 Google Scholar's new citation approach a try.
[For Noting]
* [How to find a list of most influential or cited papers in a given branch of math?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/81246/how-to-find-a-list-of-most-influential-or-cited-papers-in-a-given-branch-of-math)
* [Should you publish a rejected conference paper on arXiv?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19079/should-you-publish-a-rejected-conference-paper-on-arxiv/19080#19080)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One strategy that I can recommend: find your advisor/advisors on GoogleScholar, click Follow and tick the boxes "New citations" and "New articles related to this author's research". Google will then send you email notifications with papers that tend to be the most relevant to you.
Later, as you identify other important names in your field, follow them too.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I've also found the arXiv daily mailings to be terrible; most the papers are irrelevant for me and the formatting isn't very pretty. My solution is to use [RSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS) feeds to filter out the content I actually want.
1. Download an RSS reader on your device (I prefer [QuiteRSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuiteRSS))
2. Set up filters using different keywords, authors, etc. via the arXiv search API. Here's an example of an RSS feed URL that filters this way:
`http://export.arxiv.org/api/query?search_query=((all:boson+AND+(all:stars+OR+all:star))+AND+(cat:hep-th+OR+cat:gr-qc+OR+cat:hep-ph))&sortBy=lastUpdatedDate&sortOrder=descending&max_results=100`
The above link would find the 100 newest papers on hep-th, hep-ph, and gr-qc with the keyword "boson" and "star"/"stars" somewhere in the title or abstract (you can also filter by author, date, and so on... see the [arXiv documentation](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/basics.html) for more options). Add these types of links to your RSS reader.
3. If you wish, you can also just subscribe to the daily mailings over RSS (without the filter functionality) [using the instructions here](https://arxiv.org/help/rss).
As an added bonus, you can also keep up with your favourite Stack Exchange posts [via RSS](https://academia.stackexchange.com/feeds/week). Most published journals also have RSS feeds you can use.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I just check my field, math/combinatorics daily on arxiv.
No newsletters or emails, just check as if it was a news site.
I read perhaps 2-4 abstracts every day, and add the interesting ones to a todo list.
Once I have some time, I read a bit more carefully, and add the results to a website I manage. This process has helped me immensely.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: While the suggestion in other questions to use Google Scholar might be good in other fields, I take from your question that you are in hep-th/gr-qc. In this case, keeping up with new postings on the arXiv is the way to go. Anything worth your time will be posted to arXiv and this is generally the first place it will appear (Google Scholar alerts tend to be at least a couple of days behind the curve).
I personally just follow the daily digest e-mails. It is easy enough to do, and the mail sits in your inbox as a reminder that you haven't read the arXiv yet that day. However, there are more fancy solutions. One some of my colleagues are very enthusiastic about his [Benty Fields](https://www.benty-fields.com/). Besides simply reading the daily digests in a nicer format, the site can track your interest and recommend papers you are likely interested in. I've tried it for a bit, and found it was very nice. Nonetheless, I have reverted to just using the plain digest e-mail, as they fit my daily work flow better.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: I'll keep it real with you. I'm an [econometrician](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics). I specialize in synthetic control analysis and general causal inference. Part of what I do is keep up with new developments in SCM. Every single day, I go on Google Scholar and search ' "synthetic control" "causal" "lemma" "abadie" '. I then swap lemma with Theorem.
It is not the best way of course (I can think of other ways), but it helps me follow the developments in a narrow area of econometrics literature.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I would recommend [SciRate](https://www.scirate.com), which is a website where readers can give a "Scite" to papers they enjoy and it will list papers based on the number of "Scite", from high to low.
Compared with reading papers on arXiv directly, SciRate can provide you more information about how other people think of a paper. If you see a paper with more than 10 "Scite"s (which is already a big number considering the number of active users for this website), you can believe that paper has great significance and is definitely worth a look. But a paper with few or 0 "Scite" doesn't mean that it's nonsense: It might be a bit specific or deep for people to understand it very shortly, or the research topic doesn't overlap much with the most users' research field (I feel the users of SciRate have more math-based research taste in physics). Actually, I have seen many papers published on [PRL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Review_Letters) didn’t get any "Scite" when they first came out on arXiv.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: As an upgrade to arXiv, there's [arXivist](https://arxivist.com/). It lets you select papers on arXiv that are relevant to you and then ranks papers of the day based on how likely it thinks they'll also be relevant. It's by no means perfect, but already after a few votes it does a decent job at separating the wheat from the chaff. It can also send you the top picks of every day to your email account, which I find useful for making sure I don't miss an important paper just because I didn't check arXiv that day.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I'd like to add four possible paths that others have not mentioned yet.
First, all ethical (Musk) issues etc. aside, at least in some fields, **Twitter** is actually a very good way to stay up to date on the current literature. Follow the important figures in your field; many of them will regularly post about their own preprints or comment on other people's work. In some fields (probably most pronounced in machine learning), this really is where much of the field's conversations and controversies happen. During the recent partial Mastodon migration, a colleague complained that he's been seeing significantly less interesting papers since moving away from Twitter.
Second, **conferences**! Going to them is obviously ideal, but it can also just be a very good strategy to occasionally skim the program of high-quality conferences in your field for interesting papers.
Third, while Google scholar alerts have been mentioned (I use them), I actually find those to be less useful than simply going through the list of **recent publications of people by whom I've read a great paper**. Chances are high they have a few other great publications on the subject already from the last few years, but it might be quite a while until they produce new work in this area.
Fourth, there are now various **customized paper recommendation systems**. Typically, you can enter a few papers you consider relevant / interesting, and then they will periodically send you updates with new work you might consider useful. Some examples include [SemanticScholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/), [ResearchRabbit](https://researchrabbitapp.com/) and [LitMaps](https://www.litmaps.com/); new competitors are popping up all the time right now.
Every kind of arxiv or journal newsletter I ever tried basically just had an awful signal/noise ratio, and I usually stopped using them quite quickly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: (Specifically replying for hep-th mentioned by the author.)
I would say that the daily arxiv read habit becomes more useful after a few years in the field by which time you understand what papers are roughly about and whether they are interesting for you just from the title, abstract and author names. Once you know what the current state of the art is, it can be a good way to keep up to date on the most recent developments.
The problem with looking at these at the start of your PhD is that these papers containing the newest developments will build on other papers and will assume you are already familiar with a lot of the "most important" papers.
Therefore I would myself instead recommend reading a review on a subject you want to study in depth (probably the subject of your first research project) and read that along with the important papers cited in it.
I would also expect that your supervisor would give you a list of important papers to read and you should read those along with the papers cited in them which you will likely also will have to read in order to understand them.
After this you will likely be able to recognize, understand, and appreciate the newest papers appearing on arXiv in this specific sub field.
As your domain knowledge grows this way you can try picking up reviews on slightly different subjects and this way slowly expand the areas of high-energy physics that you understand enough so that it actually becomes useful to read new papers on the arXiv on these subjects.
(Of course a great alternative for reviews as a starting point are lectures at your university or at summer school's and such.)
>
> "I would be surprised if there aren't any "latest cool things in this
> particular area of physics" with easy-to-read formatting: an Instagram
> post, a podcast, or even just a rich text email."
>
>
>
I have never really heard about such a thing. There might be popular science things that are absolutely terrible which I would advise you to avoid. For real research I don't think this exists. I think you are overestimating how big any specific sub-field in hep-th is. There will be maybe a 100 people in the world working on the things you will work on. Not exactly enough to build critical mass for a social media audience. There are some blogs that are somewhat popular but they obviously don't discuss all important papers (probably even none within your subfield). I usually hear about <http://resonaances.blogspot.com/> although I think it is closer to hep-ph. There used to be a somewhat popular blog by a very controversial ex string theorist but I think it was taken down.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/09
| 1,762
| 7,560
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a postdoc applying for a second postdoc position, I frequently email potential mentors. I have a question regarding two situations where the faculty member showed interest in my work but had no openings. Instead, they invited me to give a talk to their research group via Zoom. While I appreciate the opportunity to give a presentation and have done so before for departments and multi-PI journal clubs, I don't find giving a talk to a single group beneficial. The reason is that the audience members were either required to be there and not interested or trying to impress their advisors by asking questions, and some were very forward. In addition, both occasions involved faculties who were center directors. Therefore, if my work interests them and they are not simply looking for entertainment, I expect them to expand the talk to their center to at least allow me to benefit from networking opportunities. Another view is that these groups are important enough that I should be more than happy to present in their group meeting (one at MIT).
As a faculty or postdoc, what is your position on asking a postdoc to present their work to your group, and if I should ask them to upgrade it to at least a multi-PI level meeting if they want me to give a talk?<issue_comment>username_1: I've done this myself a couple of times. Strictly speaking, the answer to your question is "yes", but you seem to be asking whether the benefits are justified. It can depend on personal factors, but some benefits:
>
> Should I ask them to upgrade it to at least a multi-PI level meeting if they want me to give a talk?
>
>
>
If you genuinely think there's interest, I can't imagine anybody would be offended. Better yet, though, why not also express interest in visiting in person if they have the funds?
>
> Therefore, if my work interests them and they are not simply looking for entertainment, I expect them to expand the talk to their center to at least allow me to benefit from networking opportunities.
>
>
>
I have difficulty imagining you mean this in the entitled way it comes across. Do you mean that you'd hope your host will advertise your talk to their Department or Center? I'm sure most people are willing to do that, though it might not increase attendance substantially. Otherwise, this sounds a little bit like you're saying you expect any invitation whatsoever to speak to people to be in an ongoing seminar or colloquium series. Reading slights into routine invitations even if you turn them down seems counterproductive to me, though.
As to benefits:
1. If the group's in your research area you have a pretty high chance of your talk converting to future citations of your paper(s).
2. If it sounds like they consistently run talks or meetings, you're helping them out a bit filling a time slot. No guarantees, but that's a favor to bank for the future when you're in a similar situation.
3. Feedback in the form of questions is usually worthwhile.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You should probably regard this kind of thing as a pre-interview for a position that doesn't exist yet.
Let's say you email me to enquire about positions. I don't have any money *now*, but my postdoc Alice has been interviewing for TT positions and I expect that I'll need to fill that post again soon. And I'm hoping to hear back from the funding agency any day now. Perhaps I'll even get around to writing that other grant application over the summer...
So, while I can't offer you anything right now, I am keen to know a bit more about you in case something comes up in future. And depending on how interesting you turn out to be, I might be more (or less!) inclined to make an effort to find money for you.
So, these talks are an investment in your future. They probably don't pay off now, but they may well impact what opportunities present themselves in a year or two's time. Whether that is a worthwhile investment depends a lot on your current and future plans.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Giving a short talk at a single group's meeting has the following benefits:
* Practicing your talk skills. Academia is full of *terrible* talk-givers. Doing good talks (preparing slides, speaking, answering questions) makes you a better academic and teacher. And the most efficient way to improve is to, well, give lots of talks to lots of different audiences.
* Refining your "elevator pitch" -- that is, in a nutshell, what do you do and why should I (another researcher) care? To win grants, make collaborations, and reach wider audiences (such as for commercialization or media outreach), you *need* to master your marketing pitch.
+ "I make simulations very fast so people can efficiently model batteries, supercapacitors, and other electrical devices critical for our green future" is better than "I study matrix pre-conditioning and efficient GPU computations for dynamically charge equilibrated molecular dynamics simulations to accurately model conductive boundary conditions that can't be captured by planar dielectric approximations". It's taken me dozens of talks to get there, and I'm still improving.
* Tailoring the generalist introduction to your topic. Giving lots of different talks to lots of different groups helps you gauge the "common knowledge" that you can assume, letting you skip to what makes you the best at what you do without leaving your audience in the dark.
* Broadening your horizons with in-depth discussions. Giving a multi-PI talk means your subsequent discussion will remain at surface level; giving a talk to a single group will generate deep and meaningful discussion that can result in collaborations. (And if you haven't prepared for generating discussions based on the group's own expertise, you haven't prepared for the talk.)
* Thickening your skin and deepening your gratitude. On one hand, an academic will *always* lose half their audience, simply because other academics are always distressed and harried. You might as well get used to it. On the other hand, you get the chance to share your work! You are doing something few others in the world do, and you have a chance to share your expertise with a community of like-minded people. Healthy scientific subdomains have vibrant communities where people love to share ideas and make friends -- don't ever take it for granted.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Ultimately, this is a personal decision that depends on how you value your time, but in general I would say that as an academic there is hardly a thing as giving too many talks purely from a honing your skills perspective as detailed in another answer.
On top of that, being invited to give a talk by people who are not in your network (yet), should be seen as an honour as they are interested in your work and/or you as a scientist. So each invited talk is another line on your CV, so to speak.
Third, perhaps you should lower your expectations a bit. Even as a PI I still frequently give talks to 'just' a research group. I've also given full center talks where in the end only five people from a single group showed up. As well as talks for up to 300 people in the room. Either one of these can give rise to a good discussion and new network connections and future collaborations. Strength is in interest here, not in the size of the audience.
As an aside, with the advent of zoom it is probably easier to invite people for a talk than it was before, so you may need to be selective - but keep the above in mind.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/09
| 2,389
| 10,147
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a PhD from an accreditated university, and actually am an associate professor at one, and was casually looking to apply to a masters program in an unrelated discipline at another university. Mine doesn't offer the program, but it is something I thought would be fun to learn. First question out of the box from the recruitment counselor was: "So did you get an undergraduate degree? How were your grades?"
My response was "I have a PhD. Of course I have an undergraduate degree. Why do you care?"
She replied they would need all my undergraduate transcripts because of "accreditation." This includes transcripts from a junior college I attended 40 years ago. Really? And what are they supposed to prove that can't be demonstrated from my (more recent by a couple of decades) graduate transcripts already?
I have dealt with accreditation on the major courses side, but not the admissions side (if such a thing exists.) Is there no one at these places that recognizes a PhD kind of implies I had at least a modicum of success as an undergrad?
Frankly, it's not a big deal; after all, I had to do it before when I applied to graduate schools in the past. But I am an old codger and find it rather irksome that institutions can be so mind-numbingly inflexible when faced with situations that don't easily fit the template: that of being a young, recent graduate with no post-graduate education. I actually find it hard to believe (because it IS so dumb) but can't find anything posted anywhere that directly addresses this.
So what's the word from anyone who actually serves on one of the various accreditation bodies. If I am a university, am I at risk of some sort of violation if I accept someone into a graduate program who already has a terminal degree from an accredited institution without first receiving all of their undergraduate transcripts? What is the possible justification for this?
Note: It just occurred to me our registrar might have somebody who knows about this (since we are accreditated too) but I am going to post just to have it here and will answer if I find something and no one else answers.
2nd Note: Excuse the rant. After talking to the registrar it occurred to me that a college may want to see what prior courses you took that were relevant to the degree. The line of questioning is what threw me. It makes sense that a program would want to know you are somewhat qualified to pursue a graduate line of study. I suppose your undergraduate courses, albeit from decades ago, would be a reasonable line of inquiry.<issue_comment>username_1: (a) Some schools fear an audit by an accreditation body and want to see transcripts of all previous school work.
(b) Some other schools have automatized / partially outsourced to another internal entity the M.S. admissions process and those people are not able to deviate from the process, be that because of lack of willingness to adjust rules or because they obliged themselves to follow certain rules.
(c) There might actually be restrictions on the profile of the incoming student. (E.g. you need to have had a second course in calculus.)
(d) The program is competitive and the assessment of fitness is based on a formula that looks at the undergraduate education.
(e) Many more reasons I cannot think of at the moment.
In short, a program director might end up having to enforce mindless rules with the best of intentions. If you think that bureaucracy is bad, think about how things worked before bureaucracy was invented. But I enjoyed your rant.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Look, you're in an unusual situation: a PhD holder and current professor going back for a lower degree in an unrelated field just for fun. You're going to run up against a bunch of apparently frustrating protocols, because the system was never designed to handle your case. You're just going to have to deal with some of that.
My partner is actually in a very similar situation. She has a terminal degree (Master of Fine Arts) and worked as adjunct faculty for a number of years. She decided it would be fun to pick up a Culinary Arts degree at the community college where I'm a full-time faculty member (in a different department). She's likewise had to get past a slew of aggravating complications -- mandatory advisement with people that don't know what to do with her, transcripts from higher institutions that this college doesn't know how to process, months-long delays, expectation she take a basic English course, being dropped from active registration twice, etc.
There's practically no sense in trying to reason out why any particular procedural hurdle is in place for your case; it simply isn't going to make sense (from the institution's perspective, possibly, your being there doesn't make sense, i.e., is undefined behavior). Every staffer or office you deal with is going to have a checklist of items in their workflow, and many of the boxes are incoherent in your case, but the staffers are directed to get them checked off. Most of the time they won't know why it was set up that way.
Frankly, the justification about accreditation is most likely pure bullshit made up to end that conversation. I wouldn't spend a single second trying to confirm, argue, or rationalize that. In our experience (incl. me being a faculty member at the institution in question), there's nothing you can do except get those boxes checked as per the standard process requirement. It's going to be dumb at times.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Because people at these institutions have an actual job to do. Making exceptions for unlikely cases *that still fit the usual case* is literally nothing but trouble.
If your PhD and professorship is a sign you have the required credentials *because you actually have them* – just hand them in. That's it, case closed, no trouble for anyone involved.
So what if you don't have these credentials? Now they have to make an exception. And that includes dealing with an entire can of worms, both before and after the fact.
Someone has to find out whether your credentials *actually are* sufficient. Someone has to find out how to *formally recognise* your credentials actually are sufficient. Someone has to find out *which other credentials* then too may be equivalent by this precedent. … Someone down the line in X years from now has to find out what to do with this mess when administration gets retooled formally, technically or otherwise.
So yes, they will ask you first whether you can make everyone's life easier and just hand in the standard paperwork. If you cannot, things will depend on their processes and discretion but also whether you bluntly blow them off with "Why do you care?".
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: A rule that says "you must provide all academic transcripts" is far, far simpler than a rule "you sometimes must provide all academic transcripts".
We get a lot of questions here, usually by people who are unhappy with some part of their academic record, wondering if they can leave these parts off of various applications. It's very simple to tell them: well, if you're applying in the US, they're probably going to say you need to provide your entire academic record, transcripts from everywhere you've attended, so you'll need to provide them all. No, there is not a way to argue around or find some trick or gap in the language to omit that time you took a semester of coursework and flunked out, just like someone who flunked a single semester of their primary degree, you have to include that.
Now, I'm not saying that's your case at all, but I'm suggesting that rules that accommodate your special case would need to also consider all the other possible cases that would possibly allow someone to skip providing some of their transcripts. Let's say someone else has a non-traditional background, and somehow got a PhD without ever completing an undergraduate degree. That decision is up to the program granting the PhD, but it doesn't necessarily "carry over" to everyone else: they get to make their own decisions about whether an undergraduate degree is actually necessary for their own program, and whether possessing a PhD degree could somehow act as evidence in support.
The simpler rule is simpler for almost everyone. If it's *necessary*, rather than merely *convenient*, to obtain some sort of exception based on other work you've done, you could pursue that (for example: your undergraduate institution is defunct and it's not possible to obtain a transcript anymore). Otherwise, you already landed on the other good reason:
>
> It makes sense that a program would want to know you are somewhat qualified to pursue a graduate line of study. I suppose your undergraduate courses, albeit from decades ago, would be a reasonable line of inquiry.
>
>
>
It's certainly possible to obtain a PhD in some field without completing the necessary coursework to prepare you for some other masters degree, especially in an unrelated discipline. I have a PhD, too, even in a quantitative field with a fair amount of math, but there's absolutely no way I could succeed in a math masters program, I haven't taken any of the upper class math courses that an undergraduate math major would be expected to take.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You don't say what country are you from, but the ways and the set of prerequisites to get into a study may be well defined in law or other hard rule. For example, [there are several ways to get in an undergraduate degree in Catalonia](https://www.educaweb.cat/continguts/educatius/estudis-universitaris/vies-acces-universitat/), like having completed high school and a dedicated test or having another undergraduate degree. However, none of them is having a PhD. Therefore, the admission paperwork is focused in one of the established ways, that are unrelated to your PhD. Additionally, if they need to select students, the way to select them may also be set in the books, and it may be by using the high school or undergrad grades, and it may not even be possible to make an exception o that.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/09
| 482
| 1,901
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate engineering student in Azerbaijan, and my major is process automation; however, I intend to change it and study mathematics in one of the grad schools in the US. I received only A's in mathematics classes, which are Calculus, Multivariable Calculus, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra. Currently, I have been self-studying more advanced mathematics branches such as Real Analysis and Abstract Algebra, also have written a research paper on Differential Equations. Nevertheless, I have mediocre and low grades in the engineering classes such as "Electrical Materials and Devices", "Electrical Machines", "Process Control", etc. My current GPA is approximately 3.55, and I am planning to take GRE and GRE mathematics subject tests. Does my plan seem plausible? Am I eligible to study in PhD program for mathematics under such circumstances?<issue_comment>username_1: A GPA of 3.0 and above is usually the gold standard, at least in my field (physics), so it sounds like you are on the safe site. You may also consult with tools such as [this](https://www.scholaro.com/gpa-calculator/), which easily allows you to convert your non-US grades to a 4.0 system GPA.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You can be considered, but note that doctoral admissions in US is broad based with letters of recommendation especially important. You are also missing some essential advanced courses that US undergrads usually take: Abstract Algebra and Topology for example. There are other common ones like Finite Math and Symbolic Logic.
There are some places that will let you make this up. But...
See this answer to our canonical question: [How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/176908/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-country-x/176909#176909)
Upvotes: 1
|