date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2023/05/10
| 3,417
| 14,698
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm involved in a research with a first authorship dispute between the one who lead the research and the one who did the most important part of the analysis.
I give you the facts from a neutral perspective:
A had a research idea and gathered a group of people to work on it. In the first meeting he asked to B if they could do some analysis in which the paper would be based on and B agreed. Also asked C to do some other analysis. D, E and F where in charge of minor analysis and to add their expertise on interpret the results.
Once B's results were successful, A started to write the paper with the help of the other coauthors, doing most of the writing work. However, he did not do any of the analysis on which the paper is based. His role was leading the paper and writing.
Once the writing is over, A included the names of the coauthors in order A, B, C, D, E & F. But B complained that he did the most important analysis on which the paper is based, and suggested that the order should be B, A, C, D, E & F. A suggested to B to do it in the former order with the specification that A and B contributed equally, but B replied to do the same but with the latter order. Finally, both want the research to be cited as either A et al. or B et al., since it gives them more prestige.
Now it seems that B wants to withdraw their contribution and analysis to the paper. A wants to continue anyways with the paper without B's contribution since they think that it can be redone with C's analysis. However, the paper will lose a great part of its content. C's analysis support B's findings, but the proper ones are the one that B did. I'm trying to calm them down and to mediate between them, but I would like to know what would be more ethic. For me, it's a new situation, since in my field, usually the one who leads the paper does the most important analysis and writes the first draft.
Supplementary information:
* Both A and B are starting in this topic, so it seems that both want their surnames to be associated with this.
* B argues that at the beginning they didn't know that they would carry the weight of the analysis part. They thought that their part would be equilibrated with other coauthors. That's why they didn't raise their voice before to ask to be the first author, although they recognize that they should have done it before. They are also very shy and maybe that played against them.
* Indeed, A wanted to be the first author from the beginning. So, in that case they should have told B not to participate in this paper.
* B specially complains that A didn't do any analysis and only wants to get credit for others' work
---
**Question**: What would be the most ethical solution to this problem?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, there isn't any set criteria for being first author, other than making the largest contribution. Having been on both sides of this in the past, I'm not sure there is an answer, other than maybe to turn back the clock and have an explicit discussion about author order earlier.
I'm of the opinion that author A is in the right. He conceived of the research, delegated tasks, and took the lead on writing. I would consider that a more substantial contribution vs being assigned a piece of the analysis (important as it may be) and taking part in the usual writing and revision process. A also seems to have made a reasonable concession with co-first authorship. This is just based on my own assumptions and field.
Whether or not A is right doesn't *really* matter though, since a disagreement like this will prevent publication and no-one wins if that is the case. Ultimately, it seems like it is in everyone's best interest to come to some decision, even if someone has to make a concession.
The best thing to do is bring in an outside, impartial person (perhaps a mentor or a more experienced colleague) and agree to go along with their recommendations, whatever they may be. Someone will end up unhappy at the end, but hopefully the paper will go out.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There is a solution to which the wiser of A or B will agree. It is as follows.
Clearly, there is no clear answer to your question. Had there been one, you wouldn't have posted here. So if you are looking for the solution of your original question, read no further. What I want to do is change your question to a one which can help the situation:
How can we manage this situation in such a way that future collaborations between all coauthors is amicable?
Sit down with both of them individually first to propose the solution that A and B contributed equally, that a distinction of who did more is not readily possible or sensible, so let the order *this time* be A,B,C... with A and B both contributing equally. Then talk to both of them that the next paper will be B,A,... with both contributing equally (and only if they actually do!). Tell them they are both just starting out and there needs to be more papers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: No clear cut answer but some suggestions.
1. Bring in a senior person and have them talk with A and B (sit in if you want to since you seem to be an impartial party as well and you might help to clarify things when needed as you know the case and both A and B), assuming that you really are impartial in the matter). It is important that nothing gets lost in translation here.
2. Do some research to find what is common in your field (I don't think you mention this). In some fields, senior authorship is as important as first, so if A is willing they might even take that (last) spot and call themselves lead author and corresponding author and give B first (A will then look more senior - only works if this holds standing in your field).
As another example, in biomedical research, there are author guidelines and author contribution categories from ICMJE.
You can even try to make these contributions quantitative (e.g. for each category, let the authors themselves fill in how much they contributed. As an example: let's say data analysis is a category and the total contribution in this category is 100%. B may think they did 80%, with C, D, E and F each doing 5% (in reality it may turn out to be less than 80% for B after a few back and forth discussions). Same for writing the first draft, where from how it sounds A did 100% (or if others wrote small sections they also get a few percent). Etcetera. In the end, each category needs to add up to 100%. This puts things in a more objective perspective (lots of work though and it requires agreement between authors but this is a good thing).
In general though writing the first draft and getting everything ready for publication as A appears to have done does carry a lot of weight.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It is field dependent, but in my own experience, the first author ususally goes to the person that did the main investigating / research and the last author goes to the person that took on the supervisory role. The authors in between are normally ordered according to their contribution.
From this viewpoint, I suggest that B should get first author and A last, but, as I said, that is field dependent and might not apply to you.
In any case I think that even though A feels like it would increase their reputation by having another first author paper, if that comes at the cost that B withdraws their contribution and the paper is inferior because of it, A should think long and hard if it really is better for their reputation to have one really good paper with last author or second author with equal contribution than having a bad/mediocre paper with first authorship.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: IMHO, both A and B should be reminded that the main purpose of research is advancing the knowledge and not self-promotion (especially by such a meaningless criterion as being the first or the second in the author ordering).
Flip a fair coin and, if everybody is so eager to make his/her particular contribution known to the public, describe it in the introduction. Playing childish vanity games is detrimental to both the science and the public image of a scientist.
Just my two cents.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Assuming there is no workaround the issue, e.g. a sit-down with both authors did not solve the issue, this is how I have seen this solved:
The paper is split into two papers, one paper with authors A, B, the second paper B, A. The fight then moves on to which paper will take the lion's share of the contributions from C, D, E, and F, assuming that A and B will each try to have their respective papers be the bigger one. So C, D, E and F have a conversation without A and B present and split the baby (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon>). Nobody is happy, but everyone moves on.
Both papers are submitted simultaneously with a note to the editor. This requires a compliant editor, which might mean a lower-ranked journal. But that's the price A and B have to pay. I've seen this solution work a couple of times.
But let's assume that they both dig in, neither wants the paper split, and both want you to adjudicate. As @username_1 notes, A is in the right.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I faced this problem on two similar occasions, after my long-term coauthor Val and I completed our joint projects. On each of these occasions, we had a lot of new material on our hands. So we could easily afford writing two separate papers, to be published back-to-back in the same issue of a journal. In the first paper, the order of authors was "Michael and Val", in the second -- "Val and Michael".
Do you think you can convince your collaborators to split the paper into two ones?
Things change when the coauthors' job situations are different. Say, when a tenured scientist is collaborating with a junior colleague lacking a permanent position or with a colleague surviving on soft money. In this case, it would be gentlemanly of the tenured coauthor to yield the first authorship to the non-tenured one.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: #### A and B should consider a binding determination from a trusted neutral expert
As others have pointed out, this is a lesson in the importance of negotiating authorship order and work responsibilities *prior to* commencing a research project. Since that ship has sailed, as a suggestion for forward progress, if A and B cannot agree on authorship order (as appears to be the case), they should instead attempt to agree on *a process for binding determination of authorship* to which they are both willing to be held. It is sometimes the case that parties who are in an insoluble dispute over an issue can nonetheless agree on a reasonable process for binding determination by a neutral third-party.
One sensible option would be to negotiate for a trusted neutral expert (e.g., a senior academic in their field but who is a neutral arbiter on the matter) to review the history of the research agreement and the respective contributions of the parties and make a binding determination on the proper authorship order. Both A and B would have an opportunity to present their "case" to this decision-maker and would agree in advance to be bound by the outcome of the determination. This would allow them to "agree to disagree" but still push forward with the publication under an agreed process for determination of authorship.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I recently read a paper where the authors use an asterisk and a footnote: "Equal contribution, order randomized.": <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09332.pdf>
Maybe this could be a possible solution.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Just randomize order in other arenas, so that each gets the limelight.
OR, you can invent a new designation for authorship. Show principle authors, and then list secondary ones.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: Some fields it is well known the the first author's name is on the paper just to get it out there with the second name being the main contributor. As other have noted name ordering is discipline, institute and country specific. There is no clear ethical order of names as there is no universal agreement to what the name ordering means.
I would echo what others have said that to save confusion and expectation of how the names will be listed should be agreed ahead of time. If conflicts exist then it is over to Human Resources or the Legal Department to start reaching an agreement on what is acceptable or contractually required. Before it becomes an impediment to a project people need to agree to base it on contribution, seniority or lottery.
A possible resolution could be to have all members of the project make a confidential vote on what name order should be. Have a trusted third party organise it and agree the options. e.g. just come up with a ranked voting system where everyone lists their preferred order of names (B, C, D, A) or system for ordering names (random, contributions, lives of report written).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: The solution is simple and straightforward: **List authors alphabetically or in randomized order** (and say that you did so in a one-sentence footnote, so people don't get the wrong idea.)
The custom of encoding contribution significance by order of listing of authors is, IMHO, a poor one. More fields should adopt the custom of Mathematics, Theoretical Computer Science and some other fields to list authors in arbitrary order. This dissociates the question of personal aggrandizement / credit / boasting rights from the actual published work. If someone really wants to know who contributed what, they can write and ask; in which case the respondent won't need to provide a ranked list but could describe things in whatever way they saw fit.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_13: In my area (social science) and experience, there is too little information here to say who "deserves" first authorship. Doing the so-called main analysis in a quantitative social science study would be an important factor for author order, assuming it is non-trivial, but hardly sufficient. It would not be uncommon in my area for someone to conceptualize the study, oversee data collection, etc. but delegate statistical analysis to a junior (in terms of author order) collaborator.
It is ultimately about the total intellectual contribution although it is not always cut and dry. When I'm unsure about order, I often give weight to whose participation came first; that is to say, if A and B have roughly equal contribution I would give some weight to the fact A organized the project.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/10
| 381
| 1,584
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a visiting student in a public university in Idiana.
Last Feburary, March and May, a student from another class shared with me a Google document multiple times:
* a group work from a course which I did not enroll in
* which gave me the permission to edit the document.
However, I did not change anything as any change will be recorded in the google drive document editing history.
I just clicked on the link for curiousity.
* Will I be in trouble with the Dean of the student on academic misconduct?
* What should I do in this case as the grade for that course has been posted and I did not see any communication from university official?<issue_comment>username_1: What people consider to be X or Y is something completely up to them. We here can only talk about the standard of the semi-mythical "*reasonable*" person.
Looking at a document cannot constitute academic misconduct unless the reading was used to copy content in one's own work. In general, students should be encouraged to share their work with outsiders and even solicit feed-back.
In general, if you post to this forum, it is helpful to include your country and to more clearly specify your question and your situation.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'm in agreement with username_1.
In addition, kindly bear in mind, from a (info/cyber) security viewpoint, (finding out) that one has Access doesn't equating using Access. This is so when engaging **confidentiality** leg of the CIA of security.
The applicable Policy will be a *decider*.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/10
| 827
| 3,492
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm aware that the idea of undertaking two separate PhDs has been widely discussed in this forum, with the general consensus advising against it. However, I'm specifically interested if it's possible to pursue two PhDs in physics in distinct subfields at a US/UK university, assuming I have a genuine desire to specialize in both fields.
Here's my background:
As a current master's student on the verge of completing my program, I'm gearing up to embark on my PhD journey later this year at the same institution where I completed my undergraduate studies. My initial specialization will be in Field A, a subject I've had the pleasure of exploring for the past three years under the guidance of my professor.
However, during my master's program, I was introduced to Field B. I've found this area to be incredibly fascinating, perhaps even more so than Field A. Unfortunately, it's currently challenging for me to delve into Field B due to my lack of background in many mathematical areas. I think I'm only confident to start my PhD in Field A at this moment.
Moreover, my undergraduate institution lacks professors conducting research in Field B, which further complicates matters. This has led me to contemplate the possibility of pursuing a second physics PhD in Field B upon completing the program I'm about to begin in Field A.
I'm also aware that there are individuals who have managed to transition between different areas of interest in physics post-PhD, sidestepping the need for a second degree by opting for postdoctoral studies. However, considering the significant distinction between Fields A and B, I'm uncertain about the practicality of such a route in my case.<issue_comment>username_1: It is very unlikely to find an institution in the US that will allow you to obtain a degree in the same field again. If you are interested in both fields A and B and absolutely insist on being trained in both, then you need to find an institution that can support you in both fields. If you publish in Physics A and in Physics B, then you could/would be considered an expert in both, regardless of your thesis.
Life involves making choices and each choice closes possibilities. You should ask what you can do with both Physics A and Physics B. If you find a good answer to this, then you probably have found a way to make this come true in your life. If you cannot come up with a good answer then you just need to decide.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Even if it were allowable, I don't see why it would be desirable. I'm a public policy phd student, but at day's end this is a masquerade. I'm really an econometrician who uses public policy to ask and attempt to answer interesting questions. I have multiple interests, yet I cannot specialize in all of them. So, I network. I have contacts... Sounds like you need coworkers in these different fields you're interested in. I'll explain.
I have friends who are in criminology. So, when I wanna do a crim paper, I work with them. When I wanna do meta-analysis, I work with my coworkers who do that. When I wanna do razor's edge econometrics work, I work with my friends/other colleagues in 'metrics. In other words, even if you don't become The Ultimate Brain in both subfields you do like, you can still both study and do very meaningful work in all these fields. Presumably physics is slightly different due to structural reasons, but the basic principles I speak of should still apply.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/11
| 1,785
| 8,337
|
<issue_start>username_0: Prior to starting my Ph.D., I initiated a project with my former boss. We both wrote proposals and secured funding from an international foundation for a two-year period. The following year, I began my Ph.D. program (continuing with the project), during which I dedicated four years to collecting data, selecting sites, managing and verifying expenses, obtaining permissions from landowners (basically all logistics), and, of course, drafting reports for donors.
We also received an additional grant from a government agency during this period. Essentially, I coordinated and executed all the fieldwork. During this time, I had the idea to gather supplementary data that could potentially be used for other publications. However, they recently published a paper utilizing this data without acknowledging my contributions and efforts.
I reached out to all the authors via email, and their response implied that I lacked interest in publishing because I still had pending papers from my dissertation (although I have already published two). It's worth noting that they submitted two papers using data derived from my project without sending me the manuscripts for review, yet I am still listed as an author.
Furthermore, one of the authors, in the current paper falsely claims to have overseen logistics and handled data collection. In reality, this individual only assisted with data collection at less than 5% of the sites and was not involved in any logistical aspects. Additionally, they omitted acknowledging funding from one of the donors in their article.
My former boss suggested that I could be included as an author in other papers as a partial resolution, but personally, I don't believe this is an ethical solution. I understand that situations like these are common in academia, and it often feels like the person with less power has more to lose (and that's me). What options do I have?
Update: They sent me an email telling me they have requested my inclusion and also the inclusion of the other funding source. However, they haven't replied to my request to send me the email that they supposedly sent to the journal. So I am kind of worried that they are trying to do the minimum possible. I was relieved for a couple of hours after their email, but then I remembered that I shouldn't be so trusting. It's only been four days since I found out and I already feel the toll on my physical and mental health
Update 2: I am now listed as an author, and I would like to express my gratitude to all of you for your insights. I also wanted to share what I have learned:
Keep evidence: Whenever you send databases or any type of information, do it via email. I searched for any evidence I had regarding my contributions and found a substantial amount, including pictures, documents, emails, and text messages. Although I did not need to use it, I knew that if I wanted to contact the journal, I had important evidence to support my case.
Journals do not typically prioritize authorship issues. However, if all authors agree to add or remove an author (including the one being added or removed), the necessary adjustments will be made. This applies even if the paper has already been published, as they can publish a note of correction. In my case, the correction was handled in a very "polite" manner.
Many journals adhere to the authorship criteria outlined by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which consists of four criteria. In my situation, I did not meet two of these criteria. However, I discovered through other papers, such as "Authorship: Credit those who deserve it" by <NAME>, that if you fulfill the first criterion: "substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work," you should have had the opportunity to meet either criterion #2 or #3. Therefore, if you find yourself in a similar situation where you are told you cannot be an author due to these criteria, remember that...<issue_comment>username_1: I think the ethical answer is obvious, your name should be included on the paper if you believe that you contributed substantially enough to warrant authorship. At the very least your contributions must be acknowledged if they did not amount to authorship.
In practice, this is probably not the easy answer. You could ask the existing authors to contact the journal and request a correction. If they agree, this would be best. The situation can be called a miscommunication and everyone walks away happy (or at least unharmed). This course of action depends heavily on your relationship with your former boss and the other authors. In a perfect world, this is the solution.
If that does not pan out, it would not be unreasonable to contact the journal directly. I would expect this to sour whatever relationship remains with your former boss and would-be co-authors.
Alternatively, your university may have someone able to help mediate these sorts of disputes. Or at least may be interested in this sort of academic bad behavior and could apply needed pressure. This would also likely sour the relationship and would depend on department dynamics.
The unethical (or at least less ethical) answer is to take your former boss's offer and accept (possibly questionable) authorship on other papers. This is not necessarily something I would suggest from an ethics standpoint but practically may be the only solution.
One important point, in my experience, it is at a minimum necessary to allow all authors a chance to revise and approve a manuscript - even if their main contribution was outside of writing. Combined with your improper exclusion and the exclusion of a funding source from this paper, I suspect there are loose ethical/academic standards at play. Or at least there is a level of sloppiness. If possible, it may be in your best interest to move away from this group in the long term.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: #### You should make an ethics complaint for research misconduct
Assuming your description is accurate, your omission as an author from the first paper you describe seems to me like textbook research misconduct. In regard to this paper, it sounds like these academics intentionally misrepresented the authorship during the submission and publication process, knowing that you had made a substantial contribution to the research. (I won't speak to the latter papers where you are listed as an author, because the issue there sounds more complex.) You should bear in mind that logistical support and contribution to the acquisition of funding is not usually considered to be a research contribution warranting coauthorship, but fieldwork, data collection and contribution to experimental design (e.g., selecting sites for the work) are clear research contributions that are likely to warrant coauthorship.
The fact that they did not contact you prior to submission to advise you of the submission and how they were proceeding shows that they were attempting to exclude you without your knowledge and without an opportunity for you to object. The fact that you have email evidence showing their excuse that you had chosen not to publish other papers (which is quite irrelevant) sounds like it will confirm that they knowingly excluded you without good reason. The misconduct here is partially mitigated by the fact that they are now cooperating with you to try to correct the authorship, but this is only slight mitigation --- they tried to get away with excluding you but now are trying to correct this only after you have found out about the publication and complained.
This is highly unethical (and I would say fraudulent) behaviour. In this circumstance, I recommend you immediately make a formal complaint of research misconduct to all the relevant universities where these academics hold positions. You should continue to pursue a change in authorship on the paper concurrently with this, and you can note in your complaint that successful change of authorship would mitigate (though not eliminate) the research misconduct at issue. This kind of thing happens in academia because people let it happen, by failing to pursue the ethics processes in place to prevent and punish this unethical behaviour.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/11
| 916
| 4,027
|
<issue_start>username_0: I need some advice about how to gain research experience when I have been working in the industry for about 10 years.
I was recently rejected by all the graduate programs I applied to. Granted, they are all very competitive. I am glad I got some interviews and was waitlisted, and I would really like to try again.
I realized that I do not have much recent research experience and my LORs were all written by professors I knew 10 years ago. I wonder if there is any way I can gain more research experience by volunteering to work as a RA. I heard it's common in the labs, but sure of how it works in humanities. Any advice will be most appreciated! Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: It is common to "volunteer" as a research assistant in my field (not humanities), although this is generally something undergraduate students do. I think whether or not these "volunteers" *should* be paid is outside the scope of your question.
At some point, by the graduate level, I would expect compensation, whether you are an employee or supported via a stipend. **But** your situation is a bit unique. You are returning to school and it is not clear how independently you could work as a researcher. You may well only be able to function at the level of an undergraduate student i.e. this would be a learning experience for you rather than a productive job.
With that in mind, before you make any decision I think you should determine if your lack of research and old references are actually holding you back. If that turns out to be the case, I think your options are to:
1. Apply to other programs that may be less competitive or may be more forgiving of your lack of research experience.
2. Look for a paid RA position. It isn't uncommon for departments to prefer known internal applicants for graduate programs, especially if there is funding on the line. Obviously you also gain relevant experience. This may not be possible if these positions are not common in your field.
3. Decide for yourself if a "volunteer" position allows you to reach your goals. This would almost certainly not require a full-time commitment but you may consider enrolling as a non-degree-seeking student. It is easier to set up this sort of arraignment if you are already in the university system and have access to campus and faculty.
4. Assuming you are applying to PhD programs, you could first apply for a Master's at your target institution. These may be less likely to reject you for a lack of research. Then, as with option 2, you would be a known quantity at that university. The downside here is that MS degrees are usually not funded, if that is a consideration for you. This could also add time, although I would expect any credits to transfer within the same institution.
I want to reiterate that before making any decisions you should try to confirm that your lack of research/old references are actually the major reason you were not accepted. Most of these options requires commitment of significant time and effort. Poor interview skills, lukewarm references, mediocre grades, or a weak personal statement/CV could hold someone back from a competitive graduate program so it is in your best interest to spend your energy where it will have the greatest impact.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Not an advise but a question. Can you turn your supposed weakness into a strength?
Having spent 10 years in industry, can you not impress your potential advisor by proposing a study that would utilise your observations of some demographic or sociological aspects of the industry where you have been employed? Or some psychological issues related? Then you will have to look for departments, or particular scholars, whose research overlaps with these topics. To them, you could then be a valuable acquisition.
If you are not aiming at demography or sociology, you still can enrich your application package with an essay on the history of your industry, or on the professional jargon used in it.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/05/11
| 1,809
| 7,573
|
<issue_start>username_0: I myself work as a clinician-scientist. I work in a small group and oversee several students. The current situation involves one of them who is a PhD-candidate. She is bright, fast and hard-working. Over the past two years, she wrote several good papers. Many of these papers are based on existing collections of data. Two out of six papers were published. We tried to maximize their impact and submitted to journals with good impact factors in our field. This ended up in 4 papers being under review at the same time (although one was submitted 11 months ago and the other one just a few weeks ago). Now all 4 papers got rejected within one week. For her, this is a tough issue and hard to deal with. We discussed this today but I somewhat failed in encouraging her to just resubmit her work to other journals. Although I repeatedly emphasized that publishing also involves luck, (I feel that) she left the conversation with the impression that her work is not good enough for publication.
What could I have done better?
PS: I am convinced of the quality of her work. It is super solid and will eventually get published sooner or later.
I am aware of [Losing confidence after a series of paper rejections](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/167943/losing-confidence-after-a-series-of-paper-rejections) but could only find a partial answer here.<issue_comment>username_1: I think you're doing fine.
To me, the best way to convey this oddity of the academic publishing system is by sharing experiences and telling stories. If you get 20 academics in a room and tell the story "I once had 4 papers rejected in one week", I'd expect a combination of "Wow, that's great productivity to have 4 papers in submission at once!" and "Ha, that's nothing, one time I had 4 papers rejected in an hour!" It's just life in academia.
Now, I don't actually mean for you to assemble a room of 20 people to do this as some sort of intervention, but rather to reiterate this, share your own first-person and third-person stories, hopefully some that have a positive ending. And as more of a prophylactic approach, make sure there are social opportunities for your students to talk to each other and other researchers about these sorts of things. The group I work in has occasional "journal club" meetings where someone presents a paper that we all discuss, but especially in the good weather months we have these meetings outside, some people drink beer or eat ice cream, and people tend to hang out and linger afterwards. Or dinner parties. A lot of conversations about academia more broadly occur in those settings naturally.
Importantly, though, you also don't own or control anyone else's emotions. It can be difficult, especially for people with strong empathy, to be comfortable with others having negative emotions. You want to fix it! You want them to feel better! Sometimes, you can't. Having even 1 rejection at a time deserves a bit of a grieving process. As a mentor, you want to try to prevent that from becoming broader disillusionment and prevent it from turning into "giving up", but it's fine for it to hurt for a little while. Try to help set a schedule/goals for resubmission to keep a clock on it, but don't feel pressured to resolve this immediately, and don't put too much pressure on the next round needing to succeed. Also remember that you're not having an argument here, just present your own thoughts and feelings. If a student says they feel their work isn't good enough, if you disagree you don't need to tell them they're wrong. You can just say, "I'm proud of your work and proud to be your coauthor." It's fine if they roll their eyes, it'll sink in later.
Consider also some alternatives for spreading the work. Medicine is a bit slower on embracing preprints, but many journals are now okay with them: check the ones you plan to submit to, and if they allow then get your work up on medrxiv or similar, or biorxiv if the work is closer to basic science. Look for and suggest opportunities for presenting at conferences for your students: the networking opportunities are very important but they also give an opportunity to present work where you're face-to-face with the people evaluating it: that gives a better opportunity to defend the work and share the results compared to the faceless process of journal peer review. Look for opportunities for internal presentations to other students/faculty/clinicians as appropriate. These can happen before work is polished for submission, too: look for as many possibilities for feedback and sharing work as possible.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: When I was a first-year undergraduate student, we were working on a topic that was genuinely interesting, but new to my supervisor. Our paper was rejected six times. Not because the quality of the work was low but because we didn't have a good network and were aiming quite high and didn't quite know which journals to aim for. After the first two rejections, I lost hope. My supervisor didn't and persisted that the work is of good quality and assured us that it was just a matter of patience. It got rejected four more times before finally getting published.
I guess in professional research it is more about the work, and not about the result. It is a game of the last man standing. Most successful researchers now are not the ones who always focus on conquering new peaks, but the ones who just hold on to the end of the cliff for a longer time. You must learn to move on and try persistently. Science and art is very similar in that sense. People create art not thinking about the amount it would fetch, but thinking about the enjoyment it offers. Many art works will remain unappreciated, and some of it might even end up in the darkest corner of an art room; but after some time you will make a masterpiece and that's when people would compete to buy even your worst works.
Forget about the result, and focus on the work, results will come automatically. All the best for your work and please ask the student to keep her head high and move on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You did fine! I think it's more a case of what to do next rather than what you could have done better, as it would be surprising if, after 4 rejections, she didn't spend some time questioning her own abilities.
I would suggest some combination of the following, whichever appeal to you:
* Keep mentioning over the long term that you believe in their abilities and work.
* Point out that it is normal to feel inadequate after multiple article rejections, but that feeling passes as the work continues.
* Share something like the [CV of failures](https://www.sciencealert.com/why-creating-a-cv-of-failures-is-good-Princeton-professor-viral), or your own greatest hits of career No's, so they can see that multiple, continued rejections is the mark of the professional---only amateurs expect "genius" to be recognized first time.
* Perhaps a book such as [Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo26985005.html) would be helpful. I think it is more humanities-based, but its introduction has some good data and anecdote on how common it is for junior researchers to delay re-submitting rejected articles, and how important it is that they get the work back out there.
* Start a lab or cross-lab writing group specifically aimed at revising journal articles that have already been peer-reviewed.
I wish all advisors were as supportive as you appear to be.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/11
| 860
| 3,744
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it normal to mention names of people that gave comments on earlier manuscript drafts? Assume the comments did truly lead to improvements.
The context is for a researcher who is not very well-established, but maybe this is a relevant question more generally. My subject is math, but, again, maybe still relevant for other subjects.
When submitting a manuscript to a journal and writing a cover letter, **would it be helpful or hurtful to "name drop" more well-known experts**? Assume that the person actually did give feedback on the manuscript that resulted in a vast improvement.
My thought is that, editors may be less likely to give fair/serious consideration to a manuscript from a low-status researcher (say one with little publication history, or at a teaching institution, or no affiliation whatsoever), beyond, say, just a more cursory reading. But seeing that the author has had contact with, say, a well-known expert, might be a cause for at least a small amount of extra attention.
Alternatively, it might be interpreted as simply "name-dropping" and seen as distasteful. Though, if the manuscript achieved its present form partly due to that person's comments, then it seems relevant. Of course, one could mention that fact without naming people as well, however, "a person suggested this" just doesn't have the same feel as "<NAME>. Famous Expert suggested this."<issue_comment>username_1: Reputable journals have a procedure in place that makes this a moot issue. Often, the paper will first be looked at by a lowly peon a.k.a graduate student that will check whether formatting is correct and whether the paper is obviously a dud. In the former case, the authors are informed right away and in the latter case, the submission is flagged to the editors for a desk reject.
If the paper passes this smell test, it is checked by the editor-in-chief or a surrogate that assigns an associated editor. The associated editor then tries to find reviewers to the paper, after again giving the paper under submission a short check about suitability etc., which also could lead to a desk reject or a request to the author to resubmit a version that does not offend.
Name dropping would only help in preventing a false desk-reject, but these are usually looked at independently by different people.
Now, journals do not have to follow these procedures, and often will not based on the discipline. Mathematics papers for example are much more difficult to read than CS papers and have often only a single reviewer and a single editor involved.
So, there is no need to name-drop for a reputable journal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Having written more than a few cover letters, I'm not sure how this would even be included. It would certainly read awkwardly and I think, as you fear, come off as unprofessional name dropping. Likely it would have no negative effect on acceptance if the paper is of good quality. If the paper is of poor quality, it will not change an editor's mind.
Certainly there are journals or editors who may be swayed by big names. In that case, I would think that the "big name" would need to appear in the author list to make any difference. As already mentioned, if this person did in fact contribute significantly, they should be included in the acknowledgements at least, which would achieve the same goal - having their name attached to the publication.
I would also caution against leaning too hard into the idea that there is a bias against unestablished researchers. Peer review can be a frustrating and drawn out process, but it's unlikely in most cases that one would be held back solely because they lack name recognition, assuming the work is sound.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/12
| 1,003
| 3,985
|
<issue_start>username_0: This might be a stupid question, but I am asking as a non-native English speaker. Given that we all (even native speakers) will get our English expressions from somewhere, I am wondering when a citation/quotation becomes necessary if one finds a useful academic expression in other writings and wishes to use that in one's own writing. To be clear I am not talking here about **a)** original ideas that one borrows **b)** whole sentences or long phrases. Rather, I am thinking of expressions/wordings/language that I (again as a non-native speaker) would think are common or logical enough that they would not warrant citation/quotation.
An example could be "I wish to acknowledge the excellent research assistance of...." in the acknowledgements of an article.
The same goes for using other writings as a model. I am again not talking here of taking over the whole structure of a piece. Rather, I am, for instance, thinking about reading the conclusions of other theses to understand how to write a conclusion in terms of structure etc.<issue_comment>username_1: It is perfectly acceptable to lift boiler plate phrases like your example from papers, if the phrasing is particularly pleasing. **But** this *only* applies to those common basic phrasings that might be found in the acknowledgements, conflicts of interest, data availability statements etc... where uniformity is often encouraged. In fact many publishers will provide their own copy-paste "examples" for you to use in these sections. I would recommend using these examples over pulling directly from papers in general though, to avoid inadvertently crossing into plagiarism territory.
In general, there is nothing wrong with *emulating* the structure and style of well-written papers. That is a perfectly valid way to improve your writing, as long as you are not lifting content directly from those papers in an unethical way. Reading others' high quality papers is a good way to learn how to produce your own high quality paper.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A good hint might be to search for the phrase you intend to use:
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=70&q=%22acknowledge+the+excellent+research+assistance+of%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,50>
I get several hundred hits to numerous unrelated sources, none that credit the phrase that I can see. I think you can consider this just a common English phrase in this context.
From an academic perspective, as you mention, it also has nothing to do with the *ideas and concepts* that are most important to credit others for.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: #### Quotes and citations are required for research content, not standard phraseology and linguistic structures.
Consider the following hypothetical quote from Smith (2865):
>
> The Rogerian school of art typified the creative output of the middle years of the post-crisis, pre-unification era of Free Outer Ruritania from 200 to 300 years before the Firestorm Apocalypse.
>
>
>
This is research content (the "beef" of a research paper), and needs a citation. For example, this might be an appropriate paraphrase:
>
> Since Rogerian art predates the Firestorm Apocalypse by at least 200 years (Smith 2865), we can tell that....
>
>
>
Now, how would you paraphrase the following?
>
> The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
>
>
>
Hard, isn't it? Each time you try, you likely lose some of the precision in the statement. For example, the paraphrase:
>
> No conflicts of interest were declared by the authors.
>
>
>
loses some precision in that now it is unclear if the authors specifically denied a conflict of interest or simply failed to say whether one existed or not.
You could also try something looser, such as:
>
> Since no conflicts of interest were declared by the authors (citation to an irrelevant paper in another field), is is apparent that....
>
>
>
Now we are just being silly.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/12
| 1,474
| 5,608
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a final year project report and I would like to acknowledge a friend who is a doctoral student.
Is it appropriate to write
>
> Special recognition is due to Dr. <NAME> for her support..."
>
>
>
I don't know whether she will present her dissertation before I submit my report but given the current state it is unlikely.<issue_comment>username_1: Who knows what the future will bring? Maybe something bad happens and she will never get her PhD or maybe she will also become a professor and should be addressed as prof. Dr., or ... So the safest thing to do is take the state of the world at the moment of writing rather than try to predict what the world will look like when a reader reads it. The current state of the world is that she is not a doctor, so no Dr.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To add to username_1' answer: The custom in Germany is (was? in 1980 in Mathematics) to never use titles (in articles or books) for living persons. Once you're dead, your academic career is over and you no longer can acquire new ones. Of course, a professor is a Herr or Frau Professor, and if you have two Ph.D.s you are a Doctor Doctor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: This is just my opinion, but if you're friends, like "first name basis" friends, why not just use their name? My friend got his degree in econ from Columbia. Smartest man I've ever met. But while we're coworkers, we're also friends.
So, when I thank him in my Dissertation, I'll thank "Mani" not "Dr. Bayani" because I don't know, it just sounds weird, to me anyways. Another thing is that if you're a 4th/5th year student, your advisors at this point are really more like senior colleagues than outright superiors.
I call my mentors Dr. Sevigny and Dr. Coupet instead of Eric and Jason, but that's because... I don't know, Sevigny is much older (in his 50s) and I took Coupet's course so I guess I'm more used to hearing people call (when addressing him) him Dr. Coupet. I don't know, academia is kinda weird in this regard. But my point is, if you both are friends, proper friends, then just call them by their name.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree with the other answers that you should not address people by titles that they have not yet achieved, so it would be inappropriate to call a doctoral student Dr. That said, since this is in a relatively informal acknowledgement section, you could still pay heed to her studies and refer to her as "soon-to-be Dr. <NAME>". This strikes me as a more reasonable statement about expectations for the future, rather than a statement that's misleadingly untrue.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: As someone who just recently finished his PhD, it feels a little bit weird and unnecessary to use the Dr or even PhD titles unless it's for something formal or in engagements directly related to the field. And it wouldn't have even cross my mind to use it before completing my public defense plus getting all the needed approvals from library, department, college and registrar's. So, it's a long road even at the end! Before that, I was simply a PhD Candidate, which ain't bad. Probably that's your friend's title at the moment and (assuming it is) could be used, if need be, as a reference.
As a side note, I call everyone I work directly with in academia by their first name regardless if they are students, fully tenured professors or what have you. And I've never been corrected by anyone on this, even when their title has been fancier than professor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Would you refer to [academy award nominee Ian McKellen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Ian_McKellen) as academy award winner Ian McKellen?
Of course not. So stop giving other people pre-emptive titles they haven't yet earned.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: No, it is definitely not appropriate. Your school would even have a rule as to whether or not you could refer to her as a doctoral candidate at this stage. If she is a candidate, then this would be fine. Otherwise, you should simply say her name without any titles because she doesn't have any.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: Absolutely not. There is a HUGE difference between being a doctoral student and a doctor. There is no comparison. You should never refer to any person who has not COMPLETED a PhD as doctor. Just no comparison. Try that around doctors and see what happens.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: In Dutch-speaking countries, we use the title [*doctorandus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorandus) (abbreviated *drs.* instead of *dr.*) for PhD students. It is a Latin [periphrastic passive participle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_tenses#Participles) that literally translates to "he who must be awarded a doctorate", from the verb [*doctorare*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doctoro#Latin). I was surprised to find out that this is not a standard adopted anywhere else.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: While this repeats some other answers arguing for not using a title, I want to offer an additional argument.
*Keep to what is factually true at the time of writing.*
So, I would phrase it as follows:
>
> Special recognition is due to my fellow doctoral student (and friend) <NAME> for her support..."
>
>
>
Anyone reading this, can surmise, that by the time they read your acknowledgements, <NAME> might also have finished her PhD, or not ... at the time of writing (you writing the acknowledgement), nobody could have known.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/12
| 944
| 4,044
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose a postdoc spent 3 years going through a heavy divorce but was still working full time. But it meant he didn't focus on good career development. Can and should he include this in his CV when applying for assistant professorship jobs?
Sometimes in applications they ask "include details of career breaks". But this doesn't count as a career break.<issue_comment>username_1: No. If necessary, mention it in the application cover letter. But not in the CV.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: No, I would say this is unlikely to reflect well on you. There's a chance you might get someone sympathetic to your situation. However, it very well may also reflect badly on you - the person reading the application may infer that you are difficult to get along with and cause conflict, or that you make excuses when things don't go as planned in your career. Whether these interpretations are fair or not is immaterial if the person reading the application believes them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: No.
I understand you are trying to get the equivalent of a golf handicap, with the hope that you will be evaluated on your potential and not your actual production. The problem with that approach is that almost nobody lives a 'clean' life: if you were to poll all postdoc applicants, you'll find that they all have gone through at least one major setback: serious illness, divorce, death in the family or of a close friend, abusive relationships, unwanted pregnancy or miscarriage, mental health issues, estrangement from parents (e.g. being cut-off from financial support), etc. There's a misconception, particularly in US culture (where I live, I don't know where you live) that everybody has a 'clean' life and a few, the exceptions have setbacks. This attitude is not as common in other countries, e.g. countries in Latin America or Germany, where people more openly talk about their problems.
Trying to get a handicap because of a stressful divorce might work against you, because it will mark you as the type of person who wants to be evaluated on potential and not results. A prospective employer will then ask themselves what will you do when the next thing happens, e.g. when one of your parents inevitably dies, your child goes to the hospital, you end up in a bad relationship, etc. Will you be the type that sends an email message mid-project saying you will take a month-long "mental health break" (this has started to become more common in the past few years)? This is not to say that you should not take time off work when you need it, but that presenting yourself as someone wanting to be evaluated on potential and not results is a big red flag.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: Nope.
Your prospective employer doesn't need to know this and generally you want to avoid providing any superfluous information that could be a cause to discriminate against you.
That's not to mention that what an employer cares about is your ability to do your job regardless of everything else going on in your life. It's your output that matters, not your output modulated against how hard your life has been.
It sounds unfair, but everyone has their issues and it's the only fair way to do it. How could an interviewer reasonably assess whether Person A who has some great evidence of being an above average employee but has no life drama is better for the job than Person B who was an average employee but their dog died and their brother was hit by a car that year? For all the interviewer knows, Person B is a complete sociopath who hated their brother and doesn't care about their dog whilst Person A is actually, unbeknownst to them, secretly suffering through depression. The only thing you can go off is evidence of ability to do the job.
Now, if you did actually take a career gap *and* it was questioned in the interview, you could reasonably excuse it by saying you were dealing with family issues and they should say no more about it. However, you didn't take a career gap.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/12
| 2,643
| 11,824
|
<issue_start>username_0: Soon, I'll likely teach a stats methods course at the masters level as part of my policy PHD program. If it were up to me, the class would only have one or two assignments determining your grade (putting attendance and other mandatory things that I can't change aside). This class would have lectures/readings, but 0 homework, no quizzes, no discussion posts, no nonsense.
The only assignments that determine your grade in this case are the final paper, and the first draft of that same paper. The paper would be a *real* paper, where students must collect, clean, and analyze a dataset, applying one of the methods we'd discuss that semester. I view there being several advantages to this.
The first advantage is pedagogical: to me, the only way for me to REALLY know if you understand something is by you writing it out to me and proving to me that you do. People can be nervous test takers. In-class tests have arbitrary times as determined by your class. The professor can sometimes choose questions that're worded unclearly or unfairly. A written paper? That you have many months to prepare about a topic that you choose? No, there's less of an excuse here. Why?
Well, you'll have books and freeware to explain the statistical material. You'll also have me for this purpose. You can also call me, come to office hours, email me for feedback on topics, data sources, whatever. You also have no quizzes or homework to worry about, so the burden my class has can't be used as an excuse for why the draft and final aren't done. In other words, you'll have all the time in the world and all the resources you could ever dream of to ensure the assignment goes well.
I believe it also prepares masters/PHD students for their careers one day where, if they go into academia, they'll be evaluated by their *publications*. A class that demands a quality paper they conceptualize and write is more representative of what they'll actually be doing in the real world as researchers, generally speaking. I'm not a professor yet, but I've always figured that this would be a good model for instruction (at least for stats methods in the social sciences). I was wondering if this model made sense or not from a pedagogical perspective.
EDIT: I should've specified more the first time, but yes, the degree to which I'd pursue this specific model will depend a lot on if it's a PHD class and if it's elective. If it's elective and PHD, naturally I'll presume everyone has certain working background knowledge (the masters level stats courses including causal inference) and wants to dive further. Now that I think about it more, this model would *only* be tenable for PHD students interested in methods. For a masters course, the way I've outlined it would be much too cruel of an expectation.
If I did anything like this at the masters level, I would likely only ask them to *design* a study, likely using synthetic data (that's what we did in my masters course), and implementation would be completely optional. I would also likely have additional assignments since I would presume most people have little to no exposure to the material and would need that to learn better<issue_comment>username_1: This looks and feels to me like a typical capstone project with students who have had a chance to digest the material already.
As your students would work as individuals, you would really work them either very hard or the results will be disappointing.
Even if it involves group work, it assumes that your students can pick up on how to do statistics very quickly and on their own. A certain part of your class will not know how to start or even whether their project is feasible. You would need to get involved in their thinking process continually and for long periods of time. Another part of your class will feel that they pay you (or rather the university) to explain them statistics to you. Expect to have a conversation with the dean or your chair. It is hard to come up with a project that gives just weights to the complete process of statistical analysis as you envision it. Your colleagues might complain that your students will never have seen X or Y when they come out of class. If something goes wrong without the fault of a or the students, you have no fallback. You are running the risk of getting the worst teaching evaluations in your department ever and students will then hate you and your guts.
Now, here is what I can advise you to do based on my 30+ years of teaching. Do not take this as an absolute, others had different experiences and the personality of the instructor is very important in what works and what does not work.
* First, I agree with you that an ideal setting of project based learning would show better results than what we typically end up doing. In fact, your proposal shares many elements with a flipped classroom.
* Second, in Business Administration master programs, case based learning is prominent. You might pick up some ideas by looking at what they do. You will find that colleagues across campus are surprisingly accommodating if you say that you want to learn from them.
* Third, since this is your first try and you do not yet know all the things that can go wrong, look into smaller projects, at least two per quarter or three per semester. This way, if without fault of the student something goes wrong, you can adjust to the failure.
* Fourth, even Master students need motivation. If you flip the class-room, then each class-room session should start with a quiz on the material to be learned for this class. The quizzes allow students to *learn* time management, something that your proposal presumes.
* Fifth, you need to specify what material to learn and how to learn it. Just because you find the material now easy does not mean that others do.
* Sixth, students are in your class not just to learn statistics, but also to learn the skills to pull off a longer project. If they work with other students, they need to learn some team management methodology. They will probably need more guidance.
TLTR: Learning by doing is ideal, but you should see your vision of this class as a goal to achieved over many iterations of this class. Organizing project based learning is difficult and you might need to learn by trial and error. Limit the size of the errors so that they are not career ending. Include the experience of others, there is no need to reinvent a catastrophe. Remember that you are also tasked with teaching your students time management, planning, project management and so much more that I cannot think of at this moment.
Immediate advice: Doing something unusual only pays off if it is a success for all. You might not remember, but there was indeed a time when nobody ever was fired for buying the system from IBM.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: On paper this sounds like an amazing class, one that I would have liked to take in graduate school. But I could easily see this going sideways very quickly. I can only speak from a practical perspective, not necessarily a theoretical, but there may be problems.
Whether or not this is well received is heavily dependant on what type of masters-level students you are teaching. Are they interested in a PhD or research work using these techniques? Or are they just caught up in this class as a requirement of their program? This could affect how willing they are to produce what you consider a "real" paper.
Another consideration is the level these students will be on day one of the class. A paper of the scale and quality that you imply almost demands that they *already* have enough experience with these methods to pick a topic and start developing it early in the course. But if this is a more introductory course how could they?
Following this train of thought, what happens if a student picks a topic and data that doesn't work out -just like real life research sometimes hits a dead end? Will they be penalized for this? How will you ensure students pick an appropriate topic with a usable data set and answerable question?
Finally, and maybe most importantly, does this format achieve the goal of the class, to teach statistics methodology?
Overall, these questions are just meant to help you think of this class from the students perspective. I don't mean to trash this idea, I love it. But I think to put it into practice you need adjust your expectations somewhat. I would suggest, at a minimum, more than just a single draft of the final paper. You may consider including a graded assignment at every step of the development process i.e. a proposal, a short lit review, a methods section (which is important given that this is a stats methods class), a first draft, perhaps another draft, and the final paper. Although following this format you risk turning this into a writing class.
Alternatively, perhaps you could require students submit a hypothetical methods section for each topic you cover, with the goal of picking one and turning it into their final project. This would ensure that they have mastered the content at each step of the way, while still working towards your end goal of a quality, "real" paper.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you need more structure, here. I think you are also designing a class which rewards only learning material in depth, but does not reward any learning in breadth.
To the first comment: It's all well and good to prepare students for the day when they will be judged solely on the quality of their publications. It is not all well and good to do that by just judging them solely on the quality of their publications, full stop. As others have said, this is a project-class, and without exception, every *successful* project-class I have ever taken breaks the projects down into smaller steps and assigns grades to those steps, often with presentations in class.
This has a lot of benefits:
* It shows, it *instructs*, the students in the art of managing larger projects, where in this case the project is a statistical analysis and written document. This is a skill that can be instructed, and mastered. It doesn't just happen.
* It ensures (not 'encourages', 'ensures') that you have up to date knowledge on the status of the various projects through the term, and it tries to ensure that the students are not drifting 35 degrees off the direction you want them to go. No one wants to work hard for three months, then find out there was no meeting of the minds with their professor, and now they get a C+ and their advisor wants to know what the heck just happened.
* In-class presentations (for all of the various project stages) although many students hate them, can be *incredibly* useful. There is great virtue in one student seeing another student use a given technique in ways they would not have thought of. And although it's not pleasant, there's also great use in seeing mistakes caught and pruned early. Student A might not be making that mistake today, but seeing Student B make it and be corrected may prevent later errors.
But this of course all needs to be shaped, structured, managed by you, and communicated to the students. It may result in some loss of the total freedom they would have in their own future publications, but that is the price of learning.
To the second comment: If the only thing you truly intend to teach is how to apply already known techniques toward a larger project then these comments probably don't apply. But if you're also teach a toolkit or a spectrum of techniques, what you're doing here is telling the students *very clearly* that the only techniques they need to learn are the ones that apply to their projects. Students being students, some will take that to heart and ignore everything out of the scope of their project.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/12
| 901
| 4,111
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing my PhD thesis now. It comprises, in particular, one published article in a Q1 journal. This is a compilation thesis, and thus articles are pasted directly. For context, we apply machine learning techniques to biology, and publish in biology journals.
Here is the issue: When trying to solve a problem, I upgraded a machine learning method with a modification. Since, at the time, I was not good at all at reviewing literature, I thought that no one had had this idea before, and I called the method X. Now, while writing the thesis document and properly reviewing literature, I just discovered that this methodology already exists in the machine learning field, and it is called Y (which, by the way, is a better name). In addition, several more advanced adaptations also exist.
What is the best way to proceed here? The thesis has an introduction, and I am thinking maybe citing the article describing Y and saying we do the same thing and call it differently, I think it is the best course of action. I am deeply worried that I did not really contribute with anything new and concerned that someone may think that this is plagiarism.
Of course, none of the co-authors (it is just three of us), nor the reviewers, noticed this.<issue_comment>username_1: I would acknowledge that you've since found that someone else did something similar/the same thing. You can still describe how you originally came to your findings and the checks/tests you performed independently.
Independent discovery is not plagiarism when you don't know about the previous finding. Hiding that someone else already found something you thought was original is quite suspicious though. Now that you know, act as though you know.
It's common that things are discovered more than once. Communication barriers used to play a big role, through language, physical distance, and distance in time (things get forgotten or their applications are not evident immediately). Today, many of these barriers are reduced, but instead there is simply *so much* information out there that it's easy for things to be lost in the background, especially when terminology differs.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Change your claim. Instead of 'This thesis proposes a novel method X for ...' to 'This thesis presents the first study that shows how method Y can be applied to field Z'.
The strategy is to present a new angle (or research question) or details. Usually, this is 'easy' (though requires a bit of thought) because you and the author of method Y took a different path/direction or research aim.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: This type of thing is not as unusual as you might think; rediscoveries are common and sometimes they slip into the literature because the relevant parties are not aware of the previous work. Just be clear and honest in your dissertation about what happened, and note it where relevant when citing this work in future.
Going forward, you should refer to the relevant method as Method Y (since it was first and you say that this is the better name) and cite both papers, but perhaps add a footnote noting that your own paper was an independent rediscovery of the method and noting why you've chosen to go with the previous method name. This is not plagiarism, but you are correct that this circumstance reduces the novelty of your own work. Your paper might still have value in presenting the same method in a different way and that would still be a novel contribution in a different sense. In any case, keep pushing forward with your research and pivot to new forms of novel contribution in your field.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: This happens all the time (in my field, econometrics, mainly applied). I'll review papers for meta-analysis and two completely different authors will have done very very very very similar work, almost down to the specifications, and yet they came to these decisions independently. So I would cite the other authors, highlight your differences, and talk about how your method might be useful for your applications.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/12
| 1,806
| 7,533
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a hypothetical North American setting, assume that a tenure-track candidate whose spouse is also with them during their campus visit. Having lunch with the head of department is common for such a candidate on that day. But, may the candidate's spouse also accompany them during their lunch? Any hints in this regard are appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there's an ethical question here, but perhaps an etiquette question. And the answer to that question is: No, I wouldn't suggest this to a hiring Department.
As a cultural matter, every meeting in an interview schedule, including lunch, is considered a business meeting. So lunch isn't a social outing.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just as a smallish counterpoint to @<NAME>'s good answer: *if* the spouse has a significant decision-making role in the candidate's accepting/not a job offer, it would be entirely reasonable to (propose to) include them. In that case, if the dept somehow vetos the spouse's presence, that'd be a bad sign about the atmosphere/politics of the dept.
But, yes, as @Anonymous M correctly observes, this is rarely done, in the U.S., in math depts, in my observation... "for good or for ill" ...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Firstly, there is no automatic lunch with the HoD or anyone else prior to your being offered a position or rejected.
But let's say that there is such an event. And yes, sometimes academics - both junior as well as senior - will use small meals, especially afternoon tea in UK to appraise a candidate in a more relaxed situation. Or maybe just to fit an interview into a busy day's schedule.
What would a spouse be doing at such a lunch ?
Unofficially scouting for a job of their own in the same department ?
Such intentions will stick out a mile in the emotional landscape of the lunch.
I'd expect a HoD to be quite disgruntled about this outrageous maneuver. There is ample means for an applicant with an academic wife to state their personal situation in their initial letter and depending on the employing university's policy on such things there may be a separate dialogue on that issue.
If the spouse is there to make their other half appear somehow more substantial or to offer emotional and/or moral support in putting across certain views that may or may not be controversial then the question must arise as to why the candidate needs such support in a simple one-on-two situation . . . It's going to be hard for the HoD to avoid the idea that this candidate is somehow inadequate - or at least *fears* so - as an individual representing themselves. Certainly not the type of person a HoD could feel would be a pillar of strength to the department.
If the spouse imagines that an academic selection process is just like a lot of simple social events, e.g. dinner parties, community group meetings, PTA meetings, political dinners, etc, whereby someone with a spouse is often subtly accorded a higher status than someone without one, then that spouse is making a serious miscalculation about academia. A spouse is a personal support yet never a professional one: one's colleagues fill the latter role.
If the spouse wants to be there because he/she disbelieves what their partner has told them about this job's terms & conditions and wants to hear it from the horse's mouth - well that is a damn bad reflection on the marriage.
Lastly, if the candidate wants their spouse there to neutralize any disadvantage they feel due to the HoD being of the opposite gender, I think the request would evoke a strong reaction where the HoD is a woman. For over a century women academics had to work against the head of not only "male privilege" in the profession but also usually faced all-male interview boards - and **on their own.**
To a woman HoD, any male applicant seeking to have his spouse beside him at any point during the selection process would be seeking a benefit neither sought nor obtainable by woman applicants throughout the history of academia. Your application could hardly go any further.
A tenure-track appointment obtained under such circumsances would be worthless: the story would leak out and you'd face a volley of ridiculing looks every day you arrived on campus. No department can afford to draw such a person upon themselves.
From every angle I imagine, I see this notion of yours of bringing a spouse along to an interview-lunch as suicidal in the context of your job application and, given the human tendency to gossip, quite dangerous to any nascent academic career.
If you really want to have a future in academia - moreover in teaching - please please reconsider detachedly (preferably using an impartial senior academic colleague) the **appearance** of your *modus operandi* during job applications. Tenure-track candidate selection will for obvious reasons be conservative: the employing department will be obsessed with *not* hiring an applicant who shows the slightest indicator of uncollegial behavior and will not care a hoot about the risk of missing out on hiring the next Schwinger or Feynman.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: In general, the rule is:
* During the *interview* (prior to an offer, as in your question), don't bring your spouse or partner to any events. Many people don't even mention their spouse, because it can unfortunately be a source of discrimination if you have a two-body constraint or you are planning to raise a family, particularly for women candidates.
* During the *post-offer visit*, you can (and are even encouraged to!) bring your spouse or partner to events where they might have a say, or where they might have a vested interest in what's being discussed. This could very well include a meeting with the head of the department if you are planning to chat about, e.g., whether the department holds social events, whether it supports a couple in making housing and job decisions, and general culture of the department.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I have been HoD (math) twice and in my uni, there is no lunch/dinner specifically with the HoD, it's usually members of the hiring committee that attend. Lunches/dinners are most definitely part of the interview process, we're just checking the absence of red flags (e.g., if you start insulting the waitstaff, what would be your attitude towards the janitorial staff be). And also trying to evaluate your capacity to function in a group. A partner would not come to Department Council meetings and thus has no reason to attend that type of event.
Now, there's another reason they should not be present. My uni has a strong spousal hiring program and it extremely important that a candidate not show their cards in that respect prior to being extended an offer. Indeed, although it can be done, it is an immense hassle, in particular for the HoD, to go through the process of spousal hiring. And the hiring committee knows that and also knows that the process is likely to delay the hiring by one, if not two months. A candidate that would come with a two body problem would therefore probably lower their chances of being extended an offer as compared to someone without a two body problem. (The right moment to bring up the issue is *after* an offer has been made.)
There are of course exceptions: someone hired at a higher level would probably be more open. (Math is a small world.. if you are the prof level and have a spouse also in the field, it's likely that this is known.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/12
| 2,116
| 8,850
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergrad physics major and I have been involved in something that I (and my supervisor) want to get published (I am the first author and my supervisor is the only other coauthor). This is a theoretical work - so no data/lab work. This is also outside my curriculum and contributes in no way to my being awarded my degree - its purely something I have pursued of my own accord.
While our work/results are far from path breaking, it is original and kind of interesting (but nothing riveting); however, this work is based on a topic that has been around for a long time. When it comes to the content I would describe it as too much for a typical undergrad journal, even something like Am J Phys (so my supervisor said), but not enough for a proper high quality journal, like say the Phys Revs (in my opinion).
Despite this, we made an initial submission to such a top journal - we got desk rejected within a week (reason being the our work was not suited to the said journal, probably in terms of quality; editor advised us to look for a more specialised place). Now, my supervisor wants to try another similar journal - I am nearly certain we are going to be desk rejected this time as well. I recognise that my supervisor has a huge amount of experience and wouldn't have suggested publishing if he didn't feel it was worth it. Therefore, despite reservations, I am okay with submitting wherever he wants me to.
Now, we already published a pre-print on the arXiv and my question is as follows: **In case our manuscript remains unpublished by the time I graduate (another 2 years), would my arXiv preprint have any positive impact on my CV?**<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there's an ethical question here, but perhaps an etiquette question. And the answer to that question is: No, I wouldn't suggest this to a hiring Department.
As a cultural matter, every meeting in an interview schedule, including lunch, is considered a business meeting. So lunch isn't a social outing.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just as a smallish counterpoint to @Anonymous M's good answer: *if* the spouse has a significant decision-making role in the candidate's accepting/not a job offer, it would be entirely reasonable to (propose to) include them. In that case, if the dept somehow vetos the spouse's presence, that'd be a bad sign about the atmosphere/politics of the dept.
But, yes, as @Anonymous M correctly observes, this is rarely done, in the U.S., in math depts, in my observation... "for good or for ill" ...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Firstly, there is no automatic lunch with the HoD or anyone else prior to your being offered a position or rejected.
But let's say that there is such an event. And yes, sometimes academics - both junior as well as senior - will use small meals, especially afternoon tea in UK to appraise a candidate in a more relaxed situation. Or maybe just to fit an interview into a busy day's schedule.
What would a spouse be doing at such a lunch ?
Unofficially scouting for a job of their own in the same department ?
Such intentions will stick out a mile in the emotional landscape of the lunch.
I'd expect a HoD to be quite disgruntled about this outrageous maneuver. There is ample means for an applicant with an academic wife to state their personal situation in their initial letter and depending on the employing university's policy on such things there may be a separate dialogue on that issue.
If the spouse is there to make their other half appear somehow more substantial or to offer emotional and/or moral support in putting across certain views that may or may not be controversial then the question must arise as to why the candidate needs such support in a simple one-on-two situation . . . It's going to be hard for the HoD to avoid the idea that this candidate is somehow inadequate - or at least *fears* so - as an individual representing themselves. Certainly not the type of person a HoD could feel would be a pillar of strength to the department.
If the spouse imagines that an academic selection process is just like a lot of simple social events, e.g. dinner parties, community group meetings, PTA meetings, political dinners, etc, whereby someone with a spouse is often subtly accorded a higher status than someone without one, then that spouse is making a serious miscalculation about academia. A spouse is a personal support yet never a professional one: one's colleagues fill the latter role.
If the spouse wants to be there because he/she disbelieves what their partner has told them about this job's terms & conditions and wants to hear it from the horse's mouth - well that is a damn bad reflection on the marriage.
Lastly, if the candidate wants their spouse there to neutralize any disadvantage they feel due to the HoD being of the opposite gender, I think the request would evoke a strong reaction where the HoD is a woman. For over a century women academics had to work against the head of not only "male privilege" in the profession but also usually faced all-male interview boards - and **on their own.**
To a woman HoD, any male applicant seeking to have his spouse beside him at any point during the selection process would be seeking a benefit neither sought nor obtainable by woman applicants throughout the history of academia. Your application could hardly go any further.
A tenure-track appointment obtained under such circumsances would be worthless: the story would leak out and you'd face a volley of ridiculing looks every day you arrived on campus. No department can afford to draw such a person upon themselves.
From every angle I imagine, I see this notion of yours of bringing a spouse along to an interview-lunch as suicidal in the context of your job application and, given the human tendency to gossip, quite dangerous to any nascent academic career.
If you really want to have a future in academia - moreover in teaching - please please reconsider detachedly (preferably using an impartial senior academic colleague) the **appearance** of your *modus operandi* during job applications. Tenure-track candidate selection will for obvious reasons be conservative: the employing department will be obsessed with *not* hiring an applicant who shows the slightest indicator of uncollegial behavior and will not care a hoot about the risk of missing out on hiring the next Schwinger or Feynman.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: In general, the rule is:
* During the *interview* (prior to an offer, as in your question), don't bring your spouse or partner to any events. Many people don't even mention their spouse, because it can unfortunately be a source of discrimination if you have a two-body constraint or you are planning to raise a family, particularly for women candidates.
* During the *post-offer visit*, you can (and are even encouraged to!) bring your spouse or partner to events where they might have a say, or where they might have a vested interest in what's being discussed. This could very well include a meeting with the head of the department if you are planning to chat about, e.g., whether the department holds social events, whether it supports a couple in making housing and job decisions, and general culture of the department.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I have been HoD (math) twice and in my uni, there is no lunch/dinner specifically with the HoD, it's usually members of the hiring committee that attend. Lunches/dinners are most definitely part of the interview process, we're just checking the absence of red flags (e.g., if you start insulting the waitstaff, what would be your attitude towards the janitorial staff be). And also trying to evaluate your capacity to function in a group. A partner would not come to Department Council meetings and thus has no reason to attend that type of event.
Now, there's another reason they should not be present. My uni has a strong spousal hiring program and it extremely important that a candidate not show their cards in that respect prior to being extended an offer. Indeed, although it can be done, it is an immense hassle, in particular for the HoD, to go through the process of spousal hiring. And the hiring committee knows that and also knows that the process is likely to delay the hiring by one, if not two months. A candidate that would come with a two body problem would therefore probably lower their chances of being extended an offer as compared to someone without a two body problem. (The right moment to bring up the issue is *after* an offer has been made.)
There are of course exceptions: someone hired at a higher level would probably be more open. (Math is a small world.. if you are the prof level and have a spouse also in the field, it's likely that this is known.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/13
| 1,441
| 6,369
|
<issue_start>username_0: It is established that the pass rates in Germany university courses are low. Typically people would say as explanation of how this happens, that the universities increase the difficulty of their courses or that there is not enough student support by teachers.
Disregarding support from teachers, in which way exactly are courses in German universities difficult for student? How do the teachers raise the course difficulty?
I am particularly interested in the case of bachelors in mathematics.<issue_comment>username_1: This can only be answered by comparison.
There are a number of differences in the teaching cultures of the USA and continental Europe. I have taught classes in both countries.
* You pay virtually no tuition fees at German universities in comparison to US universities, even as a foreigner. Whereas in the US you are a paying customer and you essentially buy your degree, in Germany you are supposed to prove that you are worthy of getting the degree.
* American universities focus on 'teaching' in the sense of the teacher feeding knowledge into students. Students have a rather passive attitude. At German universities the focus is on 'learning', meaning the students play the active role.
* The general German attitude is that 'everyone gets a shot' at passing but they make it insanely difficult in order to filter out people.
* At American colleges, students take a semester-long class where they practice mathematical reasoning. For example, they will talk one month about mathematical induction. At German universities, the teacher will talk about it for ten minutes, you get a few exercises, and then you are supposed to get it.
* The focus at German universities is on axiomatic build up, even in classes for non-mathematicians, whereas American universities never do those foundations.
* Typically, science classes are a few years ahead of their American counterparts.
* German students finish high school much later. Much of what Americans do in their first few college years is considered high school material in Germany.
* In addition to more material expected when entering university, the pace is much higher. What is graduate class material in the US will be undergraduate at many European universities. It is generally expected that students complement their studies with additional reading.
* Depending on the place, 50% of students will fail at the exam, and that's the desired outcome.
If you want to get a direct impression in comparison to US universities, I'd recommend taking a look at, say, Koenigsberger's "Analysis I" book. On the other hand, the linear algebra books by <NAME> have the reputation of being difficult (so Americans told me) but are considered accessible reading by most German students.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You can raise the difficulty of a course by:
* covering more material
* covering more complex material
* covering the same material but accepting fewer failures
* any combination of the above
Comparing US and German courses in this respect is rather complex as the mathematics education in secondary education in the US is notoriously bad. So what is complex mathematics for a first year student in the US is something the German students learned in the 3rd or 4th year of Gymnasium.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To add to username_1's and username_2' excellent answers, here are my two-cents based on getting a doctorate in Mathematics in Germany and then teaching in the US. From what I can tell, things in the US have not changed enough in Mathematics (I now teach in CS).
Beginning Mathematics in Germany was more abstract and used the axiomatic method, whereas for example Calculus in the US is aimed at natural scientists and especially engineers (at least at my school, the engineering school drives what is to be covered in Calculus). The equivalent class in Germany is Analysis. In the US, students are taught to calculate integrals and derivatives so that they can later do Fourier analysis and similar transforms, even though most of the students do never use them. In Germany, we were taught how to derive analysis from first principles and how to prove the important theorems. In the US, the quotient rule of differentiation is not often proven, whereas it is standard in Germany. In the US, students learn how to prove theorems maybe in the last semester of their sophomore (second) year and usually later. In my school, this is done with Discrete Mathematics and with Linear Algebra.
From what I can see what is happening in Germany right now, the engineering schools will teach their own Ingenieurmathematik classes as some did in my years, just after the Romans left the Rhineland.
So, even with the change in orientation towards the new B.S. degrees, I would still assume that beginners classes in Mathematics have a different goal than beginners classes in the US.
I am just supporting here what username_2 and username_1 wrote, even if I am not repeating their arguments. There are also great observations in the comments. This is a very interesting question that you are posing, worthy of a much deeper investigation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I studied math in both the US and Germany (in the US at an expensive private university; i.e., not somewhere where the students need remedial math classes). In my experience, the programs are about equally rigorous. I would not say that the material in German courses is particularly hard, although it's possible that the pace is faster; in Germany not all the homework or test questions will be covered in class, and you have to supplement with your own reading.
The biggest difference is probably that in most (all?) German universities, your grade is based completely on a single final exam, whereas at US universities, a large proportion is based on homework. This means that in the US, a poor student can scrape by by just copying from a classmate. In my experience it was also much more common at German universities for students to show up unprepared for the final exam. There are multiple reasons for this; for example, Germany makes it fairly simple to repeat a failed exam, whereas at a US university, if you failed the final you would have to repeat the entire course. No doubt, however, this also contributes to the low pass rates.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/13
| 1,440
| 6,272
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose, someone did his bachelor's from the faculty of humanities, master's from the faculty of social science, and then received a Ph.D. in statistical mechanics and did postdocs in the same field.
In other words, he never studied any "course". He did self-study while doing his PhD, and published a lot of papers with high impacts.
What kind of barriers will he face during the hiring process?<issue_comment>username_1: This can only be answered by comparison.
There are a number of differences in the teaching cultures of the USA and continental Europe. I have taught classes in both countries.
* You pay virtually no tuition fees at German universities in comparison to US universities, even as a foreigner. Whereas in the US you are a paying customer and you essentially buy your degree, in Germany you are supposed to prove that you are worthy of getting the degree.
* American universities focus on 'teaching' in the sense of the teacher feeding knowledge into students. Students have a rather passive attitude. At German universities the focus is on 'learning', meaning the students play the active role.
* The general German attitude is that 'everyone gets a shot' at passing but they make it insanely difficult in order to filter out people.
* At American colleges, students take a semester-long class where they practice mathematical reasoning. For example, they will talk one month about mathematical induction. At German universities, the teacher will talk about it for ten minutes, you get a few exercises, and then you are supposed to get it.
* The focus at German universities is on axiomatic build up, even in classes for non-mathematicians, whereas American universities never do those foundations.
* Typically, science classes are a few years ahead of their American counterparts.
* German students finish high school much later. Much of what Americans do in their first few college years is considered high school material in Germany.
* In addition to more material expected when entering university, the pace is much higher. What is graduate class material in the US will be undergraduate at many European universities. It is generally expected that students complement their studies with additional reading.
* Depending on the place, 50% of students will fail at the exam, and that's the desired outcome.
If you want to get a direct impression in comparison to US universities, I'd recommend taking a look at, say, Koenigsberger's "Analysis I" book. On the other hand, the linear algebra books by <NAME> have the reputation of being difficult (so Americans told me) but are considered accessible reading by most German students.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You can raise the difficulty of a course by:
* covering more material
* covering more complex material
* covering the same material but accepting fewer failures
* any combination of the above
Comparing US and German courses in this respect is rather complex as the mathematics education in secondary education in the US is notoriously bad. So what is complex mathematics for a first year student in the US is something the German students learned in the 3rd or 4th year of Gymnasium.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To add to username_1's and username_2' excellent answers, here are my two-cents based on getting a doctorate in Mathematics in Germany and then teaching in the US. From what I can tell, things in the US have not changed enough in Mathematics (I now teach in CS).
Beginning Mathematics in Germany was more abstract and used the axiomatic method, whereas for example Calculus in the US is aimed at natural scientists and especially engineers (at least at my school, the engineering school drives what is to be covered in Calculus). The equivalent class in Germany is Analysis. In the US, students are taught to calculate integrals and derivatives so that they can later do Fourier analysis and similar transforms, even though most of the students do never use them. In Germany, we were taught how to derive analysis from first principles and how to prove the important theorems. In the US, the quotient rule of differentiation is not often proven, whereas it is standard in Germany. In the US, students learn how to prove theorems maybe in the last semester of their sophomore (second) year and usually later. In my school, this is done with Discrete Mathematics and with Linear Algebra.
From what I can see what is happening in Germany right now, the engineering schools will teach their own Ingenieurmathematik classes as some did in my years, just after the Romans left the Rhineland.
So, even with the change in orientation towards the new B.S. degrees, I would still assume that beginners classes in Mathematics have a different goal than beginners classes in the US.
I am just supporting here what username_2 and username_1 wrote, even if I am not repeating their arguments. There are also great observations in the comments. This is a very interesting question that you are posing, worthy of a much deeper investigation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I studied math in both the US and Germany (in the US at an expensive private university; i.e., not somewhere where the students need remedial math classes). In my experience, the programs are about equally rigorous. I would not say that the material in German courses is particularly hard, although it's possible that the pace is faster; in Germany not all the homework or test questions will be covered in class, and you have to supplement with your own reading.
The biggest difference is probably that in most (all?) German universities, your grade is based completely on a single final exam, whereas at US universities, a large proportion is based on homework. This means that in the US, a poor student can scrape by by just copying from a classmate. In my experience it was also much more common at German universities for students to show up unprepared for the final exam. There are multiple reasons for this; for example, Germany makes it fairly simple to repeat a failed exam, whereas at a US university, if you failed the final you would have to repeat the entire course. No doubt, however, this also contributes to the low pass rates.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/13
| 455
| 1,842
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently weighing two options for my undergraduate study in mathematics, the University of Oxford and ETH Zurich. In Zurich, I would be graduating after three years with an Bsc., at Oxford I would have the opportunity to graduate in four with an integrated Masters, an MMath.
I have however heard that some European universities (e.g. Bonn) do not consider an MMath sufficient qualification for beginning a PhD in mathematics and require students complete their own Msc. before beginning their dissertation.
Since I am keen to continue in the world of research and obtain a PhD, and many of my friends have recommended ETH to me for PhDs, would obtaining an MMath degree bar me from directly beginning a doctorate?
Is it considered to be equivalent to an Masters degree in Europe?<issue_comment>username_1: A first pass answer, perhaps someone else will come by with more confidence: I did a taught MSc in the Maths Institute. One friend on the course had done the standard 3 year undergrad at Ox and opted for the MSc rather than MMath, and the concern you're expressing never came up when we chatted. Nor did I hear it from anyone else.
In short: I've never heard of anyone considering an MMath insufficient preparation for a PhD place as a general rule.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I strongly suspect that the problem is not about the MMath specifically. In Germany, getting a BSc + MSc would take 3 + 2 years, while in the UK it is only 3 + 1 years. It will vary from university to university how much of a problem this is for PhD admissions - the more the box tickers are in charge, the more complicated it is going to me. However, at any place where admission decisions are made on individual merits, an MMath from Oxford should be a very decent qualification for starting a PhD.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/13
| 1,482
| 5,834
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I went to a job agency that assists people with finding jobs. My career coach encouraged pursuing higher education. The agency is government funded and they basically help people with barriers find employment. One of those barriers are criminal records. He tried explaining to me it's a great idea.
I went with the intentions of getting a job in the trades, like carpentry, but I truly don't want to do that at all. My answer to him on why I wasn't planning to receive a higher education was because I was afraid of the judgement I would get from people. And in the long run it would be a waste of time because there so many people without criminal records competing for the same positions.
I'd like some real world perspective on this. Is he wrong? Or am I the only who needs a reality check?
Here is more backstory.
1. I was 19 when I got arrested.
2. I was an alcoholic/weed user (only for a few months)
3. Tried to rob a bank and subway store with a demand note. I was so blackout drunk that I went to the subway. When they didn't want to give any money I went to the bank a minute walk away and tried there and they gave me money. (like $500 bucks)
4. Now I'm 24, finished probation last year.
5. Haven't reoffended or got in trouble ever since. (I spent around 10 months in prison and I'm genuinely afraid to ever go back.)
Given this backstory, there's not much leeway when it comes to justification. It shows I was irresponsible and dumb. This is also in Canada, where we have a record suspension system. From what I've looked up, people with backgrounds worse than mine (like sexual assault) have received record suspensions.
In Canada, if you commit a summary offence it takes 5 years for a record suspension but an indictable one is 10 years. You can think of summary offence as misdemeanors and indictable ones as felonies.
Given this backstory, would you think its a bad idea to pursue a degree? My plan is definitely in a STEM field. However, all of what I've seen online seemed to show none of them are friendly to past convicts.<issue_comment>username_1: Typically, college educated people tend a bit more to socially progressive views, which a priori includes the belief that rehabilitation should be the centerpoint of the criminal justice system. I'm not claiming that you won't be judged in academia, but I'd expect there to be less judgement, not more, compared to society overall.
In your particular case it should help that on the "stupid vs evil"-scale your crime is quite far to the "stupid"-side. If you complete a university degree, then the claim that you have substantially changed since you were 19 seems very, very convincing to me.
If I understand you correctly, then you can get a clean record in 5 years from now. Getting a university degree would take up most of that time, and if need be, you could continue for a Master's afterwards and then approach the job search with good qualifications and a clean slate.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: [Yes](https://theconversation.com/an-inmates-love-for-math-leads-to-new-discoveries-130123). If murderers and other people who committed crimes can publish research and make breakthroughs, no reason you can't. I indirectly know someone who has a criminal history (had way rougher of a life than mine), and now they're a PHD candidate in crim. So, if it is what you want, pursue it. Who you were is not who you must be going forward.
So long as you can do STEM work at a professional academic level, then most people won't care and won't ask, in fact.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Absolutely yes. Many colleges welcome such students, and in my experience they are usually highly motivated. Since you are done with probation you wouldn't even need to negotiate attending night classes with your PO (something I've had to help a student with). Some colleges even have a designated person or office for dealing with any special issues. One such student even created a web page to help others.
One of the interesting things about a college degree is that people care a lot less about what happened before your degree. So if you get good grades and good references from faculty that will help with a good job and grad school options.
One thing that I would say, is that you don't have to lead with this information when you start meeting people on campus, just like you might not reveal other personal information to people you have just met. But also find your support system. For example, on my campus there are some faculty members who also teach in prison or who have other relevant experiences. I always try to let people know that they are the ones to go to if you need support.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: To offer a different perspective: if you don't get a degree, what are you going to do?
Ultimately everyone needs to earn money to put food on the table. You having a criminal record doesn't change this. You still need to find a job somewhere, and a criminal record is almost surely going to make it harder. It's probable the employer will wonder if you can contribute positively, since the criminal record indicates you can't.
A degree helps because (especially if you do well) it demonstrates that you've left your criminal past behind. It indicates you've learned new skills. It gives you opportunities to demonstrate you can contribute positively to your university (e.g. via extracurricular activities). It also gives you the opportunity to get references from your professors. [All these things will be very helpful to getting a job](https://ca.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/can-you-get-job-with-criminal-record).
Accordingly, in a vacuum, the answer is 'yes'. The real question when it comes to pursuing a degree is: can you financially afford it?
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/13
| 785
| 3,205
|
<issue_start>username_0: Individual patient case reports are commonly published in medical journals. I'm wondering in a situation where the patient themself is directly engaged in gathering data and finding a diagnosis, is it possible that the patient might participate in writing the case report and being listed as a co-author? Or is that considered a conflict of interest of some sort, or not allowed for some other reason?
This question is related but not the same as [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/183798/writing-a-case-report-about-my-own-medical-problems-without-treating-physician), where a medical postdoctoral worker asked about writing their own case report alone after all their treating doctors declined. In this case I'm assuming that treating doctors are still involved and one is the lead author. (Answers to that other question only address the issue of IRB approval, which I'd assume is not a problem for the present question.)<issue_comment>username_1: I believe that having a patient as an author would be ethically acceptable if 2 conditions are met:
1. The offer of authorship does not result in undue influence
2. The author contributed to the academic output significantly enough to warrant authorship
As the [Belmont Report](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html) notes:
>
> Undue influence, by contrast, occurs through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted, inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance.
>
>
>
One might consider authorship as a reward which could influence the participant to consent to the publication of their potentially identifiable information when they otherwise wouldn't. This could be a limited concern if the offer of authorship is made *after* consent has already been obtained.
As always, when considering authorship, academics should consider the contributions of all authors. Agarwal and colleagues have some useful suggestions specifically for case reports (2019. PMID [30756073](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6372049/)).
Additionally, the authors should carefully consider if the patient has any conflict of interest in seeing the results published. If they do, this must be disclosed during publication. I would probably recommend disclosing to the editor of the journal that an author is also the patient, but not necessarily report that in the paper.
I agree that case reports [do not typically require IRB approval](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/guidelines_policies/guidelines/case_report.html).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it is possible. I have witnessed it multiple times.
Some journals (<https://journals.sagepub.com/home/jpx>) even have specific formats for this. Another example is the so-called "Patient Self-Reported Outcomes" type, that is offered by some journals, for example: <https://ijdrp.org/index.php/ijdrp/about/submissions>. I do not see a conflict of interest here, as long as the case report does not claim that a specific therapeutic intervention might be generalizable to a larger patient population.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/13
| 2,940
| 12,348
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a follow up to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/196244/in-which-ways-are-german-university-courses-difficult): If large population of students in German universities are failing anyways, why not just require an entrance test for courses? Is there any reason Germany hasn't implemented this?
(Edit) I realize I should have elaborated why I recommended testing. In the place where I come from(India), well more like in 90% of Asian countries, testing is a critical part of process of getting into university. In the particular place I come from, one could argue that the emphasis on testing arises from an actual lack of university seats, but even if one talks of more developed Asian countries, for example, Korea and China, still you'd find the same. For example, the [suneung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Scholastic_Ability_Test) or [Gaokao](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaokao) in China.
And, I have an interest to study in Germany, and hence the questions arose as an interest to know why things are the way are in this country.<issue_comment>username_1: There are a number of reasons, but the most important one is that the German constitution, the *Basic Law*, guarantees the freedom to chose one's profession as a fundamental right in Art. 12 (1.1).
Based on this provision, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court strictly limited the legal room for maneuver for restrictions on access to public universities in the famous *Numerus Clausus Judgment* of 1972 (BVerfGE [33, 303](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus-clausus-Urteil)). Since then, the jurisprudence has evolved, but generally speaking, limitations such as minimum grades (sometimes not quite correctly referred to a *Numerus Clausus*) are only permitted when there is a demonstrable shortage of positions that cannot be fixed in the short term. In general, everybody with *Abitur* must be given the same access to a place to study.
---
**Edit by ccprog**, as invited in the comments: I'd like to add a few details about the actual procedures.
1. There are two seperate processes for admission to programs with restricted access: a central admission for all German universities by [contract](https://revosax.sachsen.de/vorschrift_gesamt/10738.html) between the state governments, and local admission on proposal by individual universities and governed by state regulations.
2. Both types are under the restriction to actually *prove* that the number of admissions are really exhausting the university's capacity to teach students. From my own time involved in these matters, I know that universities each year had to admit 10% or more above the initial numbers on court orders. (There are actually law firms that make a living on asserting admittance for refused applicants on these sort of grounds.)
3. The *Numerus Clausus* might not be the sole basis of admittance. Most states have laws that allow additional criteria besides the *Abitur* grade. As an example, in [Berlin](https://gesetze.berlin.de/bsbe/document/jlr-HSchulZulGBE2019pG1) universities first fill 20%–30% of the places with reseved quota like foreign students and applicants with a completed vocational training. Then, at most 60% of the places are filled by admittance criteria determined by the university and approved by the state administration. All other places are filled according to the Numerus Clausus and the number of semesters the applicant had to wait since his first petition ("waiting time").
Mind you, most universities don't bother to design special admittance criteria and just use the *Abitur* grade for everyone. First, short of interviewing everyone individually the results probably won't differ, and second, it is just too costly to do all this testing.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: First: Most people don't fail university in Germany, it is very much dependent on the topic.
Concerning your suggestion of an entrance exam: education is a state-level competence in the federal system of Germany, that is each of the 16 Bundesländer can decide on how primary and secondary education is organized in their state (of course not completely but to a certain extent). As a result the levels of knowledge in certain subjects at Abitur level varies **considerably** between the Bundesländer. As an example, when I started studying, my Abitur math level from southern Germany was such that almost all of the first semester Analysis 1 course I already knew from school while some of my co-students from other Bundesländer hadn't heard any of it before.
Due to this federal education system, implementing generalized entrance exams would be very unfair and would skew the admittance in favor of those that were more "lucky" in where they grew up.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The other answers do not explicitely mention this, but in some fields it has actually been common for decades to have some rather strict secondary school grade requirements. E.g. in medicine, veterinary medicine, psychology, architecture etc. That is the *numerus clausus* mentioned in username_1's answer.
For several years it has also been common to supplement this requirement for good Abitur grades with entrance tests, at least in medicine ([source in German](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/hochschulzugang-eignungspruefung-101.html), though arguably in the arts some kind of entrance testing has been common for decades).
Most STEM fields except biology do not have such requirements because demand for student positions is not so high most of the time. A high rate of failure then usually means that the field is inherently very difficult. However, it is sometimes alleged that exams are made more difficult if the number of first-term students is much higher then expected, in order to have fewer students in the later terms.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There are some subjects that have restrictions like this, mostly those with limited capacity like medicine. For those your final high school grade (Abitur) are typically used, which likely results in a selection similar to the one some aptitude test would create.
My impression is that this is simply not seen as a problem. It is arguably a more fair system than the alternatives. Your ability to succeed in the subject is measured by the actual courses and not by a proxy like some general aptitude test or by some subjective and potentially biased manual selection of candidates.
Difficult subjects also tend to put some of the difficult parts into the first semester, so you will usually know pretty quickly whether you're doing well or not. It does waste some time for students that pick a subject they don't succeed in, but usually not too much of it. And university is free in Germany, so the financial consequences are limited.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: username_1 has already given the most important answer why nobody bothers to take the legal hurdles.
A few other practical or political hurdles include:
* The top-tier high school diploma (Abitur) is generally regarded as a sufficient selection criterion to avoid an overflow of students. That being said, you can also enroll at a university if you complete a vocational training, with details left to the states and universities.
* Implementing another countrywide admission test would meet political opposition: it costs money, it would be considered too bureaucratic, and meet opposition by angry middle class parents. And if any politician dares messing with their kids' Abitur, [they get very, very angry](https://www.dw.com/en/referendum-quashes-hamburg-school-reform-cripples-coalition/a-5814250).
* That being said, the Abitur isn't a perfect selection criterion either. It's considerably easier to get in some parts of the country due to uneven educational policies in each state. A national college entry exam (similar to SAT in the US) would meet with opposition by the lower-ranking states. The pressure isn't that high since most students don't move too far away from their home area, typically staying within their state.
* In that sense, the college entrance exam is basically deferred to the individual university. It's not uncommon to switch programs after a semester or two, and I know people who enrolled in several programs for the purpose of checking them out.
* Another important difference to the US, India, or China: the quality of the universities is much more even. There are a few top-tier universities but generally speaking the variability in quality of the programs is not nearly as huge as in other countries. The reasons are probably political/historical. Generally speaking, a 'university' in Germany compares to an R1 college/university in the US.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: **Why should they?**
Your base assumption in that question is that a) many people failing early on is bad and b) a universal entry exam would somehow change this.
Regarding a) : A lot of courses (usually those with ease of providing high capacity because no practical stuff is necessary) intentionally have a low barrier of admittance (because they have capacity this is constitutionally required), but make up for that by challenging the students intensely in the first couple of semesters (causing many to fail). This is not a bad thing. It doesn't judge people on the performance on a singular day & test but instead on their ability to (and implied likelihood of) finish the course. This also allows for students with bad school performance to get their act together and ignores failure in fields irrelevant to the actual studies. If you CAN admit a lot of people (because the first few semesters allow for mass processing of students), why wouldn't you?
b) a universal entrance exam (completely universal like the Chinese one or per-subject?) **wouldn't change this without exorbitant cost in terms of students that would have made the course but failed the exam.** If the bar for this test is set too high, it is unconstitutional may fail people because of irrelevant subjects (a math-focused student might fail the German part for example) or for poor performance years past. It also prevents people from checking out a subject and deciding for themselves that they either dislike it, or have to work harder for it than previously. Especially the latter is impossible with a test you likely can take once as a teenager when you didn't really care for education (or for a specific field that in the end motivates them to try hard enough).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Western Public Education as a Whole
-----------------------------------
What you are describing is a very common phenomenon in Western style public education as a whole. Not just Germany. Despite socialized college education, Germany is still by-in-large a capitalist country. In most Western public school systems, the government pays for tuition and grants, not actual operating costs. When the government only pays for tuition, it means that the schools still need to compete for funding, and the most important metric for determining funding is how many students you serve.
For example, if you have the facilities and staff for 5000 students, but only 3000 pass the entrance exams because they are so difficult, then the school is still stuck paying for thier larger facility but with less income; so, it is in the best interest of a public school to always fill every available seat. So, to balance the budget, public universities set thier entrance requirement to the minimum it takes to guarantee 100% enrollment, not based on what it takes to complete the coursework.
Germany Specifically
--------------------
This said, there is also a cultural element to German education that they try to make it as non-competitive as possible. Competitive learning environments are experimentally proven to reduce the effectiveness of education, and Germany is among the top nations when it comes to applying this principle. In Germany, there is a much greater understanding that a person can fail one test, and still move on to achieve great success down the road. So, while East Asian countries have built thier public education around minimizing wasted investments, Germany has built thier system around maximizing the possible return on thier investment.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/13
| 2,881
| 12,265
|
<issue_start>username_0: We submitted an original article in January this year to a Hindawi journal. In March, we received the request for major revisions. All points were easy to address. The reviewer asked for some additional data and some minor clarifications. We sent in the revised version about 5 days later. There was just one reviewer and we were convinced that there would be a fast decision. Notably, the journal has not published a single article after March 18. We inquired about the status and received a copy and paste "it is under review" reply. Per sé this is not uncommon but I know of a co-worker of mine who had a similar experience. He has a manuscript "under review" in the same journal where minor revisions were requested in early February. Still he is waiting for a reply.
What could we do if the journal becomes "inactive"? Contact the academic editor directly? One might argue that two months is not a long period but for minor revisions (e.g. some minor language corrections) it seems odd.<issue_comment>username_1: There are a number of reasons, but the most important one is that the German constitution, the *Basic Law*, guarantees the freedom to chose one's profession as a fundamental right in Art. 12 (1.1).
Based on this provision, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court strictly limited the legal room for maneuver for restrictions on access to public universities in the famous *Numerus Clausus Judgment* of 1972 (BVerfGE [33, 303](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus-clausus-Urteil)). Since then, the jurisprudence has evolved, but generally speaking, limitations such as minimum grades (sometimes not quite correctly referred to a *Numerus Clausus*) are only permitted when there is a demonstrable shortage of positions that cannot be fixed in the short term. In general, everybody with *Abitur* must be given the same access to a place to study.
---
**Edit by ccprog**, as invited in the comments: I'd like to add a few details about the actual procedures.
1. There are two seperate processes for admission to programs with restricted access: a central admission for all German universities by [contract](https://revosax.sachsen.de/vorschrift_gesamt/10738.html) between the state governments, and local admission on proposal by individual universities and governed by state regulations.
2. Both types are under the restriction to actually *prove* that the number of admissions are really exhausting the university's capacity to teach students. From my own time involved in these matters, I know that universities each year had to admit 10% or more above the initial numbers on court orders. (There are actually law firms that make a living on asserting admittance for refused applicants on these sort of grounds.)
3. The *Numerus Clausus* might not be the sole basis of admittance. Most states have laws that allow additional criteria besides the *Abitur* grade. As an example, in [Berlin](https://gesetze.berlin.de/bsbe/document/jlr-HSchulZulGBE2019pG1) universities first fill 20%–30% of the places with reseved quota like foreign students and applicants with a completed vocational training. Then, at most 60% of the places are filled by admittance criteria determined by the university and approved by the state administration. All other places are filled according to the Numerus Clausus and the number of semesters the applicant had to wait since his first petition ("waiting time").
Mind you, most universities don't bother to design special admittance criteria and just use the *Abitur* grade for everyone. First, short of interviewing everyone individually the results probably won't differ, and second, it is just too costly to do all this testing.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: First: Most people don't fail university in Germany, it is very much dependent on the topic.
Concerning your suggestion of an entrance exam: education is a state-level competence in the federal system of Germany, that is each of the 16 Bundesländer can decide on how primary and secondary education is organized in their state (of course not completely but to a certain extent). As a result the levels of knowledge in certain subjects at Abitur level varies **considerably** between the Bundesländer. As an example, when I started studying, my Abitur math level from southern Germany was such that almost all of the first semester Analysis 1 course I already knew from school while some of my co-students from other Bundesländer hadn't heard any of it before.
Due to this federal education system, implementing generalized entrance exams would be very unfair and would skew the admittance in favor of those that were more "lucky" in where they grew up.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The other answers do not explicitely mention this, but in some fields it has actually been common for decades to have some rather strict secondary school grade requirements. E.g. in medicine, veterinary medicine, psychology, architecture etc. That is the *numerus clausus* mentioned in username_1's answer.
For several years it has also been common to supplement this requirement for good Abitur grades with entrance tests, at least in medicine ([source in German](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/hochschulzugang-eignungspruefung-101.html), though arguably in the arts some kind of entrance testing has been common for decades).
Most STEM fields except biology do not have such requirements because demand for student positions is not so high most of the time. A high rate of failure then usually means that the field is inherently very difficult. However, it is sometimes alleged that exams are made more difficult if the number of first-term students is much higher then expected, in order to have fewer students in the later terms.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There are some subjects that have restrictions like this, mostly those with limited capacity like medicine. For those your final high school grade (Abitur) are typically used, which likely results in a selection similar to the one some aptitude test would create.
My impression is that this is simply not seen as a problem. It is arguably a more fair system than the alternatives. Your ability to succeed in the subject is measured by the actual courses and not by a proxy like some general aptitude test or by some subjective and potentially biased manual selection of candidates.
Difficult subjects also tend to put some of the difficult parts into the first semester, so you will usually know pretty quickly whether you're doing well or not. It does waste some time for students that pick a subject they don't succeed in, but usually not too much of it. And university is free in Germany, so the financial consequences are limited.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: username_1 has already given the most important answer why nobody bothers to take the legal hurdles.
A few other practical or political hurdles include:
* The top-tier high school diploma (Abitur) is generally regarded as a sufficient selection criterion to avoid an overflow of students. That being said, you can also enroll at a university if you complete a vocational training, with details left to the states and universities.
* Implementing another countrywide admission test would meet political opposition: it costs money, it would be considered too bureaucratic, and meet opposition by angry middle class parents. And if any politician dares messing with their kids' Abitur, [they get very, very angry](https://www.dw.com/en/referendum-quashes-hamburg-school-reform-cripples-coalition/a-5814250).
* That being said, the Abitur isn't a perfect selection criterion either. It's considerably easier to get in some parts of the country due to uneven educational policies in each state. A national college entry exam (similar to SAT in the US) would meet with opposition by the lower-ranking states. The pressure isn't that high since most students don't move too far away from their home area, typically staying within their state.
* In that sense, the college entrance exam is basically deferred to the individual university. It's not uncommon to switch programs after a semester or two, and I know people who enrolled in several programs for the purpose of checking them out.
* Another important difference to the US, India, or China: the quality of the universities is much more even. There are a few top-tier universities but generally speaking the variability in quality of the programs is not nearly as huge as in other countries. The reasons are probably political/historical. Generally speaking, a 'university' in Germany compares to an R1 college/university in the US.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: **Why should they?**
Your base assumption in that question is that a) many people failing early on is bad and b) a universal entry exam would somehow change this.
Regarding a) : A lot of courses (usually those with ease of providing high capacity because no practical stuff is necessary) intentionally have a low barrier of admittance (because they have capacity this is constitutionally required), but make up for that by challenging the students intensely in the first couple of semesters (causing many to fail). This is not a bad thing. It doesn't judge people on the performance on a singular day & test but instead on their ability to (and implied likelihood of) finish the course. This also allows for students with bad school performance to get their act together and ignores failure in fields irrelevant to the actual studies. If you CAN admit a lot of people (because the first few semesters allow for mass processing of students), why wouldn't you?
b) a universal entrance exam (completely universal like the Chinese one or per-subject?) **wouldn't change this without exorbitant cost in terms of students that would have made the course but failed the exam.** If the bar for this test is set too high, it is unconstitutional may fail people because of irrelevant subjects (a math-focused student might fail the German part for example) or for poor performance years past. It also prevents people from checking out a subject and deciding for themselves that they either dislike it, or have to work harder for it than previously. Especially the latter is impossible with a test you likely can take once as a teenager when you didn't really care for education (or for a specific field that in the end motivates them to try hard enough).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Western Public Education as a Whole
-----------------------------------
What you are describing is a very common phenomenon in Western style public education as a whole. Not just Germany. Despite socialized college education, Germany is still by-in-large a capitalist country. In most Western public school systems, the government pays for tuition and grants, not actual operating costs. When the government only pays for tuition, it means that the schools still need to compete for funding, and the most important metric for determining funding is how many students you serve.
For example, if you have the facilities and staff for 5000 students, but only 3000 pass the entrance exams because they are so difficult, then the school is still stuck paying for thier larger facility but with less income; so, it is in the best interest of a public school to always fill every available seat. So, to balance the budget, public universities set thier entrance requirement to the minimum it takes to guarantee 100% enrollment, not based on what it takes to complete the coursework.
Germany Specifically
--------------------
This said, there is also a cultural element to German education that they try to make it as non-competitive as possible. Competitive learning environments are experimentally proven to reduce the effectiveness of education, and Germany is among the top nations when it comes to applying this principle. In Germany, there is a much greater understanding that a person can fail one test, and still move on to achieve great success down the road. So, while East Asian countries have built thier public education around minimizing wasted investments, Germany has built thier system around maximizing the possible return on thier investment.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/13
| 2,735
| 11,636
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is an author (coauthor or corresponding author) of an already published paper in a journal (IOP and Elsevier) allowed to use figures of the (already-) published paper in their poster or oral presentation at a conference by clearly citing the source of figures once the figure appears? Indeed, the presentation is a review of what we have done in different papers.<issue_comment>username_1: There are a number of reasons, but the most important one is that the German constitution, the *Basic Law*, guarantees the freedom to chose one's profession as a fundamental right in Art. 12 (1.1).
Based on this provision, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court strictly limited the legal room for maneuver for restrictions on access to public universities in the famous *Numerus Clausus Judgment* of 1972 (BVerfGE [33, 303](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus-clausus-Urteil)). Since then, the jurisprudence has evolved, but generally speaking, limitations such as minimum grades (sometimes not quite correctly referred to a *Numerus Clausus*) are only permitted when there is a demonstrable shortage of positions that cannot be fixed in the short term. In general, everybody with *Abitur* must be given the same access to a place to study.
---
**Edit by ccprog**, as invited in the comments: I'd like to add a few details about the actual procedures.
1. There are two seperate processes for admission to programs with restricted access: a central admission for all German universities by [contract](https://revosax.sachsen.de/vorschrift_gesamt/10738.html) between the state governments, and local admission on proposal by individual universities and governed by state regulations.
2. Both types are under the restriction to actually *prove* that the number of admissions are really exhausting the university's capacity to teach students. From my own time involved in these matters, I know that universities each year had to admit 10% or more above the initial numbers on court orders. (There are actually law firms that make a living on asserting admittance for refused applicants on these sort of grounds.)
3. The *Numerus Clausus* might not be the sole basis of admittance. Most states have laws that allow additional criteria besides the *Abitur* grade. As an example, in [Berlin](https://gesetze.berlin.de/bsbe/document/jlr-HSchulZulGBE2019pG1) universities first fill 20%–30% of the places with reseved quota like foreign students and applicants with a completed vocational training. Then, at most 60% of the places are filled by admittance criteria determined by the university and approved by the state administration. All other places are filled according to the Numerus Clausus and the number of semesters the applicant had to wait since his first petition ("waiting time").
Mind you, most universities don't bother to design special admittance criteria and just use the *Abitur* grade for everyone. First, short of interviewing everyone individually the results probably won't differ, and second, it is just too costly to do all this testing.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: First: Most people don't fail university in Germany, it is very much dependent on the topic.
Concerning your suggestion of an entrance exam: education is a state-level competence in the federal system of Germany, that is each of the 16 Bundesländer can decide on how primary and secondary education is organized in their state (of course not completely but to a certain extent). As a result the levels of knowledge in certain subjects at Abitur level varies **considerably** between the Bundesländer. As an example, when I started studying, my Abitur math level from southern Germany was such that almost all of the first semester Analysis 1 course I already knew from school while some of my co-students from other Bundesländer hadn't heard any of it before.
Due to this federal education system, implementing generalized entrance exams would be very unfair and would skew the admittance in favor of those that were more "lucky" in where they grew up.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The other answers do not explicitely mention this, but in some fields it has actually been common for decades to have some rather strict secondary school grade requirements. E.g. in medicine, veterinary medicine, psychology, architecture etc. That is the *numerus clausus* mentioned in username_1's answer.
For several years it has also been common to supplement this requirement for good Abitur grades with entrance tests, at least in medicine ([source in German](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/hochschulzugang-eignungspruefung-101.html), though arguably in the arts some kind of entrance testing has been common for decades).
Most STEM fields except biology do not have such requirements because demand for student positions is not so high most of the time. A high rate of failure then usually means that the field is inherently very difficult. However, it is sometimes alleged that exams are made more difficult if the number of first-term students is much higher then expected, in order to have fewer students in the later terms.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There are some subjects that have restrictions like this, mostly those with limited capacity like medicine. For those your final high school grade (Abitur) are typically used, which likely results in a selection similar to the one some aptitude test would create.
My impression is that this is simply not seen as a problem. It is arguably a more fair system than the alternatives. Your ability to succeed in the subject is measured by the actual courses and not by a proxy like some general aptitude test or by some subjective and potentially biased manual selection of candidates.
Difficult subjects also tend to put some of the difficult parts into the first semester, so you will usually know pretty quickly whether you're doing well or not. It does waste some time for students that pick a subject they don't succeed in, but usually not too much of it. And university is free in Germany, so the financial consequences are limited.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: username_1 has already given the most important answer why nobody bothers to take the legal hurdles.
A few other practical or political hurdles include:
* The top-tier high school diploma (Abitur) is generally regarded as a sufficient selection criterion to avoid an overflow of students. That being said, you can also enroll at a university if you complete a vocational training, with details left to the states and universities.
* Implementing another countrywide admission test would meet political opposition: it costs money, it would be considered too bureaucratic, and meet opposition by angry middle class parents. And if any politician dares messing with their kids' Abitur, [they get very, very angry](https://www.dw.com/en/referendum-quashes-hamburg-school-reform-cripples-coalition/a-5814250).
* That being said, the Abitur isn't a perfect selection criterion either. It's considerably easier to get in some parts of the country due to uneven educational policies in each state. A national college entry exam (similar to SAT in the US) would meet with opposition by the lower-ranking states. The pressure isn't that high since most students don't move too far away from their home area, typically staying within their state.
* In that sense, the college entrance exam is basically deferred to the individual university. It's not uncommon to switch programs after a semester or two, and I know people who enrolled in several programs for the purpose of checking them out.
* Another important difference to the US, India, or China: the quality of the universities is much more even. There are a few top-tier universities but generally speaking the variability in quality of the programs is not nearly as huge as in other countries. The reasons are probably political/historical. Generally speaking, a 'university' in Germany compares to an R1 college/university in the US.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: **Why should they?**
Your base assumption in that question is that a) many people failing early on is bad and b) a universal entry exam would somehow change this.
Regarding a) : A lot of courses (usually those with ease of providing high capacity because no practical stuff is necessary) intentionally have a low barrier of admittance (because they have capacity this is constitutionally required), but make up for that by challenging the students intensely in the first couple of semesters (causing many to fail). This is not a bad thing. It doesn't judge people on the performance on a singular day & test but instead on their ability to (and implied likelihood of) finish the course. This also allows for students with bad school performance to get their act together and ignores failure in fields irrelevant to the actual studies. If you CAN admit a lot of people (because the first few semesters allow for mass processing of students), why wouldn't you?
b) a universal entrance exam (completely universal like the Chinese one or per-subject?) **wouldn't change this without exorbitant cost in terms of students that would have made the course but failed the exam.** If the bar for this test is set too high, it is unconstitutional may fail people because of irrelevant subjects (a math-focused student might fail the German part for example) or for poor performance years past. It also prevents people from checking out a subject and deciding for themselves that they either dislike it, or have to work harder for it than previously. Especially the latter is impossible with a test you likely can take once as a teenager when you didn't really care for education (or for a specific field that in the end motivates them to try hard enough).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Western Public Education as a Whole
-----------------------------------
What you are describing is a very common phenomenon in Western style public education as a whole. Not just Germany. Despite socialized college education, Germany is still by-in-large a capitalist country. In most Western public school systems, the government pays for tuition and grants, not actual operating costs. When the government only pays for tuition, it means that the schools still need to compete for funding, and the most important metric for determining funding is how many students you serve.
For example, if you have the facilities and staff for 5000 students, but only 3000 pass the entrance exams because they are so difficult, then the school is still stuck paying for thier larger facility but with less income; so, it is in the best interest of a public school to always fill every available seat. So, to balance the budget, public universities set thier entrance requirement to the minimum it takes to guarantee 100% enrollment, not based on what it takes to complete the coursework.
Germany Specifically
--------------------
This said, there is also a cultural element to German education that they try to make it as non-competitive as possible. Competitive learning environments are experimentally proven to reduce the effectiveness of education, and Germany is among the top nations when it comes to applying this principle. In Germany, there is a much greater understanding that a person can fail one test, and still move on to achieve great success down the road. So, while East Asian countries have built thier public education around minimizing wasted investments, Germany has built thier system around maximizing the possible return on thier investment.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/15
| 788
| 3,414
|
<issue_start>username_0: Currently, I am studying for a Bachelor's degree in Economics and Finance in Australia. Although I find my program enjoyable, I have a particular interest in mathematics, particularly on the econometrics and proof-based economics side, and I believe that pursuing a STEM degree would allow me to further challenge myself while building more questioning skills.
Therefore, I am considering pursuing a second Bachelor's degree in Mathematics after completing my current degree. I am wondering if this would be a worthwhile endeavor and what other factors I should take into consideration before making this decision. Additionally, I am also contemplating dropping my current degree to start the B.Math program immediately. However, I am aware that there may be other factors that I am not considering and would appreciate any advice on this matter.
I have also researched into "conversion programs" - would these be worth pursuing vs another Bachelor's?<issue_comment>username_1: After reading your comments, it sounds like you are interested in a subfield of finance and economics. And it sounds like you are concerned about liking research and committing to a graduate program. This is not my field so I can only offer advice based on my general experience.
I personally would not do another bachelor's. Committing to a PhD can be intimidating. But is it really significantly less of a commitment than a second bachelors *considering that it sounds like you would still need a PhD in the end*? If you don't like research, what does this second bachelors alone get you? Perhaps someone here or at your university could provide you with some field specific insight. But for now, I'll assume that you need a PhD.
So my advice is:
1. If possible, spend your remaining time exploring this new interest. Take electives that are related to or important for that field.
2. If you want to pursue it further, apply for graduate programs. Masters are almost always shorter than both bachelors and PhDs. Also, (field dependent) masters often do not require research to the same extent as a PhD - sometimes a thesis that can often amount to a large literature review. I assume there are master's degrees available in this or a closely related field. If you wanted to pursue a PhD, it would be much easier to pivot in that direction from a masters.
I found myself in a similar situation in undergrad. I completed a masters and pivoted into a professional doctoral program vs accepting a PhD position at my institution. No real time was lost, and I never felt like I was "stuck" with a decision. There were other factors in my decision, obviously my situation is not the same as yours. But to sum up, don't be afraid to "commit" to a field you are interested in. There are plenty of ways to pivot if you want. You're never going to be stuck.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Persons usually do not actually earn two separate bachelor's degree. They simply take additional courses in another field, and the university gives them another diploma. But in most cases, they do not retake the first two years of a bachelor's degree program. Regardless, adding another degree at the bachelor's degree is useless, unless you switched to a subject like electrical engineering, etc from something like history. In most cases, you are better off to add a master's degree in your chosen field.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/15
| 881
| 3,585
|
<issue_start>username_0: As an example, consider the deflection of light by mass. This is a general relativistic effect wherein a large body causes light to not travel in straight lines. [Deflection of starlight by the Sun was one of the first experimental tests of General Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun). The successful detection overturned Newtonian mechanics and made Einstein famous.
This experiment was conducted about the Sun because, as the most massive object in the Solar System, the magnitude of the deflection is also greatest for the Sun, making it the easiest to detect. However, there's no reason why light would not be deflected by, say, Jupiter. Suppose a researcher, through very careful measurements, measures deflection of starlight by Jupiter. Are the results publishable?
On the one hand, the measurement is new, and it has not been done before.\* On the other hand, it should not surprise anyone if the measured deflection matches theoretical predictions from GR, in fact it would be a major shock (of Nobel-winning magnitude) if it didn't match. Absent this major shock, then, I suspect most physicists will immediately lose interest in the details of the experiment.\*\*
I've tagged the question with 'physics' because the example is from physics, although I'm also interested if something similar happens in another field.
\*I don't actually know if it's been done before. If it has been done before, replace "Jupiter" with a lower-mass object like the Moon.
\*\*To be a bit more technical, most physicists would expect deviations from General Relativity (if they happen at all) in the strong-field limit - that is, where gravity is very strong (e.g. around black holes). Going from the Sun to Jupiter is going in the "wrong direction", towards the weak-field limit.<issue_comment>username_1: As long as the experiment is testing the theory in a new way/regime where it has not been previously tested, and isn't a simple trivial variant of a previous test, then in principle the result should be publishable. The fact that we have a very strong prior on the outcome (one way or the other) does not really change that. It may not necessarily get into the highest tier journals, but it should be publishable nonetheless (as long as the work scientifically sound etc.).
A completely separate question is if research like this is fund-able...
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It was straightforward to find a paper relevant to your proposed experiment: [Li et al., *Light Deflection under the Gravitational Field of Jupiter—Testing General Relativity*, ApJ **925**, 47 (2022)](https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3821), showing quite clearly that such tests are publishable. I'm also reminded of [Gravity Probe B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B), a satellite that was launched to test aspects of general relativity within Earth's weak gravitational field, calling for a design capable of high-precision measurements. In that case, the goal was to test two unverified predictions of the theory or it likely would not have been funded. On the other hand, time at Earth-based observatories is much cheaper.
In general, as outlined in [username_1' answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196298/17254), physics is very open to publishing precision tests of theories, as is seen clearly in, for example, quantum electrodynamics (QED). Precision tests and independent verification provide key information about how well we know something.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/15
| 857
| 3,513
|
<issue_start>username_0: I enrolled in a master's program in computational mathematics, I completed my courses in a year and a half and got 3.98/4.00 CGPA (ranked 1st in my batch) then, I waited for some time to find an advisor because in the country I am in - (developing country) - there are not many research/mentorship opportunities.
I had a really horrible advisor who was very stubborn. He had an idea to implement methodology A to solve problem B and was expecting it to work, but it didn't work, and he kept asking me to try again and again. I wanted to change my research point, but he disagreed. I tried to change advisors and there was not an option to change advisors for me. Anyway, I got lost for a while then, took an independent approach and went to international poster sessions at well-known conferences like (SIAM and another one at MIT) to interact with others in the field, and some international summer schools which helped a bit in progressing my research and took online courses, and as a consequence changed my thesis key question and refined the methodology, and wrote the whole thing in the last 3 months by God's grace. He asked me to write a paper and put his name on it and send it to a journal. I agreed and this is why he is letting me graduate. The advisor didn't even bother to read anything I wrote.
It was a horrible experience, I know that I should have left the program very early on when I wanted to but I didn't and this is a mistake. Now it will look like this in my CV:
Program Enrollment date: Fall 2017/2018
Program Graduation date: Summer 2023
This is going to hurt my Ph.D. admission. Right?
What can I do to fix it? I am feeling my dreams are getting shattered, and that I am not going to get into a good Ph.D. program with a decent advisor.<issue_comment>username_1: Sorry for your bad experience for your MSc.
It seems that you are looking for a PhD opportunity in the USA. I only have experience in Europe. However, what I can tell is that every CV/experience is different. As long as you can explain/justify what is your background, what you have learned from the positive but most importantly what you have taken out of the bad experiences is what matters. Not everyone reasons like that, but I am pretty sure you will find Professors, research groups that will listen to your story and will consider you a right fit for the PhD position you are looking for.
My advice would be, reflect on what you may have done wrong and/or what you could have done differently. It could be that the Professor, with whom it did not go well, and you have ways of working that are very different. Do not blame the Professor, this will not lead anywhere. Take all the positive you can from this bad experience. Once your mind is clear, find a way to explain this "longer than it is supposed to be" experience on your CV. From your explanation, I see one or two aspects that show resilience and will in your working behavior. I am sure these two qualities are not underestimated for a PhD candidate.
Good luck, I am sure the things will turn in the right direction for you!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It probably won't affect your chances of admission. The fact that you are more experienced with the research process is a plus. You are less likely to get bogged down by the usual things that do that to young graduate students. Like otters have mentioned, make sure to spin the tale on your cover letter/statement, in a positive way.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/15
| 2,017
| 8,632
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last year I came across a student in our department (we are both PhD students) who copied a journal article in her final paper. To be sure, she didn’t copy the article word from word but did use the exact same research design (variables, data, methodology, mechanism part). The two abstracts therefore look extremely similar, as the student replicated the journal article without citation. She almost got away with this since the journal article is in another language that the instructor doesn't know. My advisor considered this as borderline plagiarism and supported me in reporting. Eventually the faculty regraded the paper but didn’t term it as plagiarism.
Several months later the student and her friend posted this incident online and attacked me personally. I heard mixed opinions from fellow students. Many people say that even though the student is guilty, I should not report her in the first place.
I am confused. Was I wrong in reporting academic misconduct?<issue_comment>username_1: It's common that people caught cheating are upset they are caught.
It's unfortunately also common that people who act unethically feel like consequences for their unethical behavior are the fault of someone besides them, the person who decided to behave unethically.
There is sometimes an "us versus them" mentality, where it may seem to other students that you've somehow "betrayed" them by revealing evidence of cheating to the authorities. However, if they simply had not cheated in the first place, they would have no consequences to bear because you'd have nothing to report. The social stigma behind this is designed to protect cheaters.
I don't think you did anything wrong here. It seems you were especially careful in that you consulted with your advisor, and the paper was reevaluated with your information taken into consideration. Once you report, it's not really your responsibility anymore. There's nothing much you can do if people want to blame you for their own misconduct.
---
Here's a story of someone who has decided to become basically a professional detector of cheating in academic publishing: [Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01363-z). Specifically, she finds cases where people have manipulated and duplicated images to falsify data, or to represent old work (sometimes by completely different authors) as new work.
>
> “At some point, I am afraid people will sue me,” she says. She tries to keep her critiques to research papers, rather than accusing their authors. Bik has not faced a lawsuit, but has been harassed and has sometimes taken time off Twitter. One person e-mailed her former colleagues at Stanford arguing that she had abused her research grant funding by pursuing image integrity investigations during work hours. (Bik says this was untrue.) Another posted personal information on PubPeer (now removed). “I’ve been called a bitch a couple of times,” she says. “It comes with the work I do.”
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Was I wrong in reporting borderline plagiarism?
>
>
>
No. You are never wrong to *report* (*suspected* or *actual*) plagiarism to a professor or department for review. You should not feel guilty about bringing this case to someone's attention. In short, you did the right thing!
Even if you turned out to be wrong, it doesn't matter: an honest, good-faith report cannot alone be used as evidence against the student, but will instead be a pointer to look into the case further and determine if there is sufficient evidence for plagiarism.
>
> My advisor considered this as borderline plagiarism and supported me in reporting.
>
>
>
Talking to your advisor (or another trusted faculty member) is exactly the right thing to do here. The fact they supported it is further evidence you were not completely misguided in your suspicions.
In general: simply turning the case over to the department or a trusted faculty member is the right thing to do, rather than trying to figure out yourself whether it counts as plagiarism. They will decide how to proceed (as they did in your case), whether that be to pursue academic misconduct proceedings, or just to give a warning, or to ignore it.
>
> Several months later the student and her friend posted this incident online and attacked my personality.
>
>
>
Many plagiarism reports are anonymous. I would encourage you in the future to ensure your name can't necessarily be tied to your report. On the other hand, being attacked online for this could be considered bullying or harassment. As the student and their friend are only posting one side of the story, try not to worry about what people are saying about it online.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: To answer your question, no, reporting plagiarism is not the wrong thing to do, ever. Even if it had been a misunderstanding, checking for plagiarism is part of the system, it's nothing personal. But since the student was reprimanded, it further shows you did exactly the right thing.
I have to admit I am mainly commenting to add a strong suggestion. I am not sure how long ago those public comments were made by the student. However, such comments don't just put you in a bad light, they also inadvertently imply that the faculty reprimanding the person was in the wrong too. Students are welcome to challenge any and all judgements, but doing so publicly without the possibility for the institution to explain their reasoning is unfair and puts the whole faculty in a bad light.
If I was the head/member of said faculty, I would want to know this is happening, have a discussion with this student and unless they can prove their stance, handle this case according to the institution's guidelines.
But, of course, it is not your duty to do this. I would fully understand why you would want to avoid anything to do with this student for the rest of your career.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm not going to tell you whether it's right or wrong.
I believe you should think consciously about your own ethics. What is the basis for you thinking that something is wrong and something else is right? I think people should not rely on other people's opinions regarding what's wrong and what's right, they should have their own. (This doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to other people and potentially learn from what they have to say. Fair enough you ask this question and get some views, still try to get yourself up to the point where you have a well founded view on this yourself.)
The bigger picture here is how you think society as a whole should work and what role science should play in it. What are the implications of plagiarism, and of somebody getting a degree based on plagiarised work? Could it be a problem for society? Or at least for some people (such as those who later employ the plagiator based on their degree, or those who don't win a position because a competitor has plagiarised and looks better on paper than they actually are)? How important is this to you?
More generally you may ask yourself whether and why you think that we should generally "play by the rules" (or not)? To what extent does it depend on the specific rule, or on who enforces them, or who benefits from it, and who is maybe disadvantaged by it?
You may also ask yourself about your ideas on solidarity and relations between students. Do you see the students as a group of people that should generally help each other, also against authorities who by marking them may determine their future fate to some extent? On the other hand, you may rather have the view that ultimately students compete against each other, and the best ones should "win", so solidarity should definitely not go as far as helping others to achieve better marks than they deserve (you may also think about who, in your view, really "deserves" what for what reason, and whether you think the the marking at universities is fair in this respect, or what would make it better, or worse).
And then you may ask yourself about whether generally standing in for your ethical principles is valuable also in the face of potential backlash. You can expect that people won't be happy if you do something that damages their position, so if you so something like this there is always the chance that you get a hostile reaction. Do you think it would be worthwhile avoiding it? Why or why not?
There are probably even more aspects of this. In any case I'd like to encourage you to train your own judgement and to learn how to use it confidently.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/16
| 1,094
| 4,445
|
<issue_start>username_0: As the title suggests, I wonder for how long one can hold postdoc positions after having done the PhD (specifically Mathematics, where I am currently a finishing PhD-student). In other words; is there any limitation on the length of the "postdoc-phase"?
I know that in some fields and some Universities they have a maximum time span (e.g. applicant cannot have finished their PhD more than three years ago), but believe myself to have seen counter-examples to this; e.g. someone had been a postdoc effectively for 12 years before landing a permanent position (lecturer, or so), but I could have misunderstood this.<issue_comment>username_1: I certainly know one person (in mathematics) who has functioned as a paid researcher for 20+ years and still does not have a permanent position. I’m not sure they are called a “postdoc” any more, but they take time-limited paid research positions. Very frustrating as they are immensely competent.
I also know of someone in physics in roughly the same situation although they did find a non-permanent but somewhat stable position in a research centre: at least there's hope the funding will be renewed for the next few years so they don't have to move every 2nd or 3rd year.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, there is no time limit. Some governmental funding sources do limit their postdoc funding with rules, e.g. only people who finished their PhD within the last 5 years might apply, etc. But this is not strictly a limit on how many postdocs you can do or how long you can be a postdoc, but a limit on getting those specific grants.
Keep in mind that these days "postoc" just means "job you get after the PhD." Yes, many postdocs, esp. grant-funded positions work as almost independent PIs hosted by an institution, while at the other end of the spectrum you have postdocs who are just underpaid teachers and technicians, and everything in between.
One of my grad school mentors was a postdoc for 20+ years and died (heart attack, old age) while still being a postdoc. So there's that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This is a North American answer.
There is no strict time limit for most positions, but most positions will have a preference for applicants that are closer to their PhDs. How strong this preference is varies from position to position and even from search committee to search committee. However, the general result is that it becomes harder and harder to get a postdoc the farther you are from your PhD. Getting hired as a postdoc 10 years after your PhD would be very unlikely though it happens.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Single data point for Mathematics, Austria:
I have been "postdoc" (funded by my own research projects) for 18 years or so before finally getting a permanent job. I have some excellent colleagues who still have no permanent position after a comparable time as postdocs.
The reason for this situation is that (in Austria, in Mathematics) it has been very hard to get permanent positions in the last 20 years or so, and much easier to get research projects. And life for the eternal postdocs now gets even harder due to new chain contract rules (you are not allowed to work in a non-permanent job at any given university for more than 8 years in total.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: The German answer:
In Germany, Universities are by law not allowed to hand out temporary contracts indefinitely and either have to give you a permanent position or not employ you at all (if you did not manage to get tenure in time, this means the latter). This is the infamous **Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz** or **WissZeitVG**.
Rougly, that means that the time as a postdoc after the PhD is in principle limited to **12 years minus the time of your phd** (e.g. 4 postdocs of 2-year length if your phd took 4 years).
The main way around this is working abroad, which does not count towards the 6 years. There are some more exceptions in Germany (third party projects, working directly towards habilitation etc.?), but I'm not so sure how this works in practice.
So there's a severe timer on your career which is why going abroad at least once is often a necessity and many end their academic career even after 10+ years as a postdoc.
---
Note: I'm not an expert on this, so please let me know if I got something wrong. But I thought this special circumstance deserved to be mentioned.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/16
| 895
| 3,772
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an early career researcher. I don't have any affiliation at present. If I get a job offer before my paper submission, it would be a couple of months before I join the position. So it might not be appropriate to name the new affiliation in my paper.
I doubt there is any solution to this problem, but I'm posting to ask just in case there is one. Would it be a good idea to submit straightaway to a journal instead of first submitting on the arXiv where people can see my paper before its publication?<issue_comment>username_1: My advice: Don't worry about it. The important thing is to show on the publication a way to contact you. Even if it is a personal GMAIL address. There could be many reasons (besides unemployment) for preferring such contact information.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not think people will necessarily infer that you are unemployed just from seeing you listed as an unaffiliated researcher.
First of all, as a rough rule of thumb, people don't think much about others (close family and friends excepted), because they are busy sorting their own lives.
Secondly, if they thought about it, they would conclude that there are alternative hypotheses and that therefore they don't know. For instance, you might be employed outside your field but continue to write publications in your field on your own time and resources. In that case, your papers would still be submitted without affiliation, as your professional affiliation would be unrelated and irrelevant to your research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Getting a postdoc is far from "making it." A good portion of postocs are just glorified technician positions exploiting recent PhDs who have not given up on the dream. So being unaffiliated is nothing to be ashamed of. If anything, it shows determination. I know very few people who have published without institutional support, so I think this looks good on you.
Did you do all of the work for this manuscript while being unaffiliated? If you did a substantial portion of this work as a PhD student, at least in my field the custom is to use the affiliation of the PhD institution. If you did the work while not being affiliated, then good for you.
It used to be that people only used official email accounts (e.g. .edu) to submit papers, but it is now very common for corresponding authors to use gmail accounts. Nobody will think a thing about it.
On a psychological note: are the people you suspect will look down at you, are these people cutting you a check every week? If not, the hell with them. You gotta make a living, and there's no shame in that. So you keep putting postdoc applications out there, keep publishing, and you'll land your job.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You don't really have much choice, do you? To advance in your career you must publish. Being affiliated or not doesn't change that fact. An awful lot of PhD graduates are unemployed. When you're unemployed, you just have to keep making every possible effort to stay active in your research, writing, publishing, and job search. This is normal and not a reason for embarrassment. *Getting your name in print is much better than being invisible!!*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> The thought of senior researchers and faculty members in my field coming to know that I am unemployed once I submit a paper without an affiliation, is killing me. It will be very embarrassing and shameful for me.
>
>
>
There is no problem with senior researchers or faculty members knowing that you are unemployed.
It could even be positive. If they're impressed by your paper and have some funding available to hire a postdoc, they might contact you asking if you are looking for a job.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/16
| 1,631
| 6,807
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am editing a manuscript for a journal that I just received and which hasn't been sent out to reviewers yet. To me, there were two aspects of the paper that irritated me a bit. The first being that it was submitted by a single author, who mentioned two names in the acknowledgements and thanked them for 'conducting the experiments' and 'providing the data' reported in the paper. This strikes me as quite unusual. Even if they were student assistants, in my field, the practice would usually be to make them co-authors of the paper. On top of that the single author's contribution is not fully clear or explicitly stated. Would it make sense to point this out and ask for author contributions? Or even suggest inclusion of these names as co-authors? How would you best go about this?
I should note that the journal provides the following guidelines:
>
> The Publisher does not prescribe the kinds of contributions that
> warrant authorship. It is recommended that authors adhere to the
> guidelines for authorship that are applicable in their specific
> research field. In absence of specific guidelines it is recommended to
> adhere to the following guidelines\*:
>
>
> All authors whose names appear on the submission
>
>
> 1. made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the
> work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the
> creation of new software used in the work;
> 2. drafted the work or revised it critically for important
> intellectual content;
> 3. approved the version to be published; and
> 4. agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring
> that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the
> work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
>
>
>
and
>
> **Author contributions**
>
> In absence of specific instructions and in research fields where it is
> possible to describe discrete efforts, the Publisher recommends
> authors to include contribution statements in the work that specifies
> the contribution of every author in order to promote transparency.
> These contributions should be listed at the separate title page.
>
>
> Examples of such statement(s) are shown below:
>
>
> • Free text:
>
>
> All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material
> preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [full
> name], [full name] and [full name]. The first draft of the manuscript
> was written by [full name] and all authors commented on previous
> versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
> manuscript.
>
> [...]
> For articles that are based primarily on the student’s
> dissertation or thesis, it is recommended that the student is usually
> listed as principal author: [A Graduate Student’s Guide to Determining Authorship Credit and Authorship Order, APA Science Student Council 2006](https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-paper.pdf)
>
>
>
I am thinking of quoting this to the author and requesting explicit clarification of the authorship contributions.
Lastly, the author did not share data/analysis, and wrote that these are only available upon reasonable request due to pricacy concerns. I think it would be possible to anonymise the data. Can I insist they share it?
I have worked as a reviewer for many years, but my editor appointment was quite recent, so I am still figuring out what I can and cannot suggest and demand. I want to use my position to improve transparency, repoducibility etc, but not abuse my power.<issue_comment>username_1: My advice: Don't worry about it. The important thing is to show on the publication a way to contact you. Even if it is a personal GMAIL address. There could be many reasons (besides unemployment) for preferring such contact information.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not think people will necessarily infer that you are unemployed just from seeing you listed as an unaffiliated researcher.
First of all, as a rough rule of thumb, people don't think much about others (close family and friends excepted), because they are busy sorting their own lives.
Secondly, if they thought about it, they would conclude that there are alternative hypotheses and that therefore they don't know. For instance, you might be employed outside your field but continue to write publications in your field on your own time and resources. In that case, your papers would still be submitted without affiliation, as your professional affiliation would be unrelated and irrelevant to your research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Getting a postdoc is far from "making it." A good portion of postocs are just glorified technician positions exploiting recent PhDs who have not given up on the dream. So being unaffiliated is nothing to be ashamed of. If anything, it shows determination. I know very few people who have published without institutional support, so I think this looks good on you.
Did you do all of the work for this manuscript while being unaffiliated? If you did a substantial portion of this work as a PhD student, at least in my field the custom is to use the affiliation of the PhD institution. If you did the work while not being affiliated, then good for you.
It used to be that people only used official email accounts (e.g. .edu) to submit papers, but it is now very common for corresponding authors to use gmail accounts. Nobody will think a thing about it.
On a psychological note: are the people you suspect will look down at you, are these people cutting you a check every week? If not, the hell with them. You gotta make a living, and there's no shame in that. So you keep putting postdoc applications out there, keep publishing, and you'll land your job.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You don't really have much choice, do you? To advance in your career you must publish. Being affiliated or not doesn't change that fact. An awful lot of PhD graduates are unemployed. When you're unemployed, you just have to keep making every possible effort to stay active in your research, writing, publishing, and job search. This is normal and not a reason for embarrassment. *Getting your name in print is much better than being invisible!!*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> The thought of senior researchers and faculty members in my field coming to know that I am unemployed once I submit a paper without an affiliation, is killing me. It will be very embarrassing and shameful for me.
>
>
>
There is no problem with senior researchers or faculty members knowing that you are unemployed.
It could even be positive. If they're impressed by your paper and have some funding available to hire a postdoc, they might contact you asking if you are looking for a job.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/16
| 758
| 3,247
|
<issue_start>username_0: My question is mainly a follow-up [on this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196256/27442).
I understand and know that it is unconstitutional in Germany to restrict access to universities without necessity and that it is hard for a university to prove that it can only accept 132 students next semester and not 133.
On the other hand, the following two things are not challenged by the courts
* fail rates of 80-90% in the first semester, often encountered in mathematics. One could argue that is also a restriction on the "freedom of profession" because the courses and exams are too difficult and it is not necessary to fail that many students.
* failure to provide the necessary funds. The states could easily enlarge the study programs e.g. for medicine by giving more money to the universities. But I never heard that a court ordered another million EUR for a university so that the university can accept all students that want to come.
So my question is: What exactly is the legal idea of "freedom of profession" and how does it apply to universities?<issue_comment>username_1: Courts will be very reluctant to assume a problem solving competency over the experts in the field. In your instance, prescribing to Mathematicians what basic competency is for a B.A. in Mathematics is left to the Mathematicians to define. Finding a way how to provide them is also beyond the courts competency, especially since there is a constitutional right to freedom of teaching. Besides, university mathematicians will claim bad preparation and just blame the high schools for not developing Mathematical skills with resulting bad numbers in the first classes. How could a court decide that since Mathematical skills are not developed sufficiently in the Gymnasium, the minimum competency of professional mathematicians would have to be reduced. This would violate the constitutional rights of all who have to rely on the certification.
Constitutional rights are never absolute because sometimes nature restricts them. Blind people cannot obtain driver's licenses and Germany has never recognized my right to a profession as the nation's teenage girl heartthrob.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There is a misconception here. The law is in place to give everyone who has the aptitude for a certain profession the opportunity to become that profession---and not just those that went to specific schools, have more money, have connections, etc. It is not meant in a way that everyone can become everything, even though they aren't able to do it (for wathever reason).
If it were like that, all professions would have to be so easy to learn that every conceivable person could learn it, which would completely devaluate any profession. I wouldn't like to live in a house planned by an engenieer who only learned the most basic of math so that noone failed the test, build by a mason whith two left hands with a color concept designed by a colorblind interior designer and then when said house comes crashing down on me I would not want to got to the hospital where the doctors did'nt have to learn all the bones in body and all the diseases, because otherwise not everyone would have passed the test.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/17
| 656
| 2,665
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am very close to finishing my Ph.D. in Computer Science and I am working full-time as a software engineer. In fact, I have been working full-time as a software engineer for the past 7 years.
I am currently working in FAANG and I am wondering if there are part-time post-doc positions available similar to what I have been doing in my Ph.D. (part-time at my own pace for the last 5 years). Or is that not an option for post-doc positions? I am in my early 30s and don't want to regret that I missed an opportunity.<issue_comment>username_1: Depending on your field of study, there are research groups that would not mind incorporating a recent Ph.D. in their on-going work, but they would probably prefer to spend their grant monies on their own graduate students instead of someone they would only see occasionally. Your paid part-time post-doc while working a challenging job is not something that academia is set up for. My expectations would be that the post-doc quickly drops out of active research since the immediate goal of the Ph.D. is already achieved.
On a personal level, you need to decide what your goals are. If you want to be active in research, you need to either go into academia full-time or you need to find a paid job that allows you to do research. After all, your Ph.D. should have trained you to work in Research and Development.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes. I did two postdocs after my PhD, one in CS, the other in Biology. The CS postdoc was Part-Time. In my case, the research group needed help with a grant-funded project, but could not afford a full-time postdoc, so they offered me a part-time position. At the time I already had another job as an administrator at another institution in the same city, so it worked perfectly for both sides. I learned a lot, and they were very happy with my work.
I know of many other postocs who have worked part-time. The issue is that these positions are usually not advertised, but you find them through your own network. Someone needs short-term part-time help finishing up a project, e.g. help a group of grad students wrap up a project and write the papers. Another PI needs some technical assistance, e.g. writing code to automate a process, etc.
Remember that "postdoc" only means "job you get after the PhD", and that postdoc positions range from grant-funded mini-professorships with your own space, students, etc., to underpaid technician or teaching positions, with everything in between. So the answer to the question of "can I get a part-time postdoc" is *yes*. The answer to "can I get a worthwhile part-time postdoc" is *maybe*.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/17
| 1,533
| 6,558
|
<issue_start>username_0: My full affiliation is:
>
> Abacus Beard Department of Underwater Basket-Weaving, Calvin Doofus Division of Ocean Science, University of Watering-Down.
>
>
>
<NAME>. is the name of a big donor. <NAME>. is the name of another big donor.
I dissent with many opinions of A. B. and my department. I don't want my name to be with AB. I like <NAME>. on the other hand. **Can I omit the department's name and AB, putting only the CD Division as my affiliation?**
The university does not have any specific rules on writing affiliations.<issue_comment>username_1: It's simple enough: do you benefit from the department and hence (indirectly) from the donation of A.B.?
If you want the benefits of being affiliated with something then you should be willing to acknowledge that affiliation.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I usually list only one "structure level" in my affiliation (it varies which one), and I've never been told off for that. I am also not aware of any potentially issues this could cause for the records (eg like a too weird formatting of a reference could deprive the cited authors of the citation count).
You could probably also just drop the "AB" from the departments name and just go for "Department of Underwater Basket Weaving".
Overall, the only problem you could face if your department/university has very detailed policies on how affiliations should be phrased, and someone actually cares enough to pay attention and then enforce them. This would surprise me, but you'll know much better than us how the local situation is.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Your suggestion seems strange to me, and also rather churlish. In the first place, acknowledging a person or organisation in an academic paper does not imply that you share their views or that you "like them" --- acknowledging a donor just means that their resources contributed to the research and listing your department in your byline just means that it is the department you were in when you did the research. Thousands of researchers publish papers that are funded by places like the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, etc., and I would never imagine that these researchers necessarily share the views of Bill and <NAME>, or the various other billionaires who control these funding bodies. Likewise, I would think there would also be thousands of academics who have grievances with their departments or donors, and I would never presume the absence of such grievances merely because they list their department name in their byline or list donors as contributing to funding the research.
There is variation in the particular types of acknowledgements that people make in papers, so you probably have some legitimate discretion here. Nevertheless, these decisions are usually driven by *clarity and candour* in relation to the relevant organisations and people, rather than the author's personal views on the merits of ideas held by those people. Clarity and candour in the acknowledgements is really just a basic element of politeness in relation to sources of research and the general desire to give the reader correct and complete information. It's not a good idea to develop a reputation as someone who withholds acknowledgement or credit to others simply because you don't get along with them personally or don't share their views.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: Congratulations, you have come to a point where you need to decide what matters to you more - your beliefs or money. If your department accepted funding from someone you disagree with, then you are always free to quit in protest. This way, you will not have to accept money from someone who you feel is abhorrent, and you will act in accordance with your beliefs.
You can donate an amount commensurate with the donor's contribution to your salary (a rough computation would be the donor's contribution divided by the department's overall budget), which is in my opinion the most noble option.
You can also advocate with your department chair, dean, and provost to reject the donation. This is very unlikely to succeed (since administrators love money more than almost anything). You can campaign with faculty, staff and students, to get them to pressure the administration to reject the donation. This would also probably come at a personal cost.
Simply removing the donor's name is an empty gesture, unlikely to sway anyone and do nothing except make you feel a bit better about "doing something" or "sticking it to the man". It's also, as @username_3 suggests, a bit hypocritical - you are accepting the donor's money after all (either directly or indirectly).
As researchers we often need to decide whether to accept funding from X. Unfortunately, having enough money to fund universities often correlates with some skeletons in one's closet. You can choose to accept this as a reality of research, and try and do the best things you can with the funding you were given. You can also choose to reject it (I, for one, will never accept funding from certain financial institutions that openly support terrorist activities/drug dealers; some people don't accept DoD/DARPA funding), but understand that it will come at a cost.
Besides being hypocritical and childish, ignoring funding sources most likely violates funding acknowledgments rules/department regulations. For example, when writing official letters on behalf of the university, such as reference letters, you will need to do so using the department's letterhead, and changing it is not allowed.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: I mean, if you feel better by omitting the department, why not just do it?
If somebody at your university objects, you can still change it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: This article might help you think about the tensions involved in philanthropy.
<https://johnsoncenter.org/blog/philanthropy-and-reparations-righting-the-past/>
I'm making some assumptions here, but often the tension people feel about having a foundation's or person's name on the department (or museum or whatever) gives the name an air of legitimacy, when the money may have been acquired by illegitimate means (or perhaps the person/family were historically involved in perpetrating racist polices, for example).
Some foundations have been publicly acknowledging this, and it would be reasonable for university faculty to suggest/encourage a foundation to try to acknowledge and/or redress past transgressions.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/17
| 3,313
| 14,045
|
<issue_start>username_0: Background: the answers and comments on [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/196297/16198) prompted this question.
I know that when a new scientific theory is published there is a rush for people to devise experiment to prove or disprove it. However there is lot of research that involves original experiments that are not necessarily related to new not-yet-proven/accepted theories.
Now, obviously science relies heavily on peer-verification of theories and experiments, but are experiments today actually verified by independent peers?
The thread I linked to made me grow some doubts: if an experiment has so much trouble being funded, how is it possible to scientifically verify the results of already published data, especially of high-cost experiments. If there is no incentive in doing that verification, how can articles describing a new experiment be validated scientifically?
Disclaimer: sorry for the possible dumb question, but I had only a brief experience in academia at the beginning of my career (and it was in SW engineering, where "experiments" are way less common than proof of concepts software, so verification is a far less difficult subject there).
As a further explanation of my doubts, the last time I remember an experiment being rejected because it couldn't be validated was the thing about [cold fusion by Fleischman and Pons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion), back in the late 80s. At least that was a case that reached mainstream media. I guess such events (both validation and rejection) are more common in the specialized journals, but I don't remember any other "big event" that reached the mainstream media since then.
Please, note well that **I'm not claiming that experimental results never get published by the mainstream media**, here I'm focusing on the **validation by peers that are independent from the original authors/scientists**.
---
Maybe I wasn't too clear, possibly because I didn't use the right terminology.
I'm not particularly interested in the review process details (although I welcome any correction about my lack of terminology), but in actual scientific validation of experimental results.
What I really care for is whether or not published scientific experimental results are effectively put under *experimental* scrutiny by the scientific community.<issue_comment>username_1: No, peer-reviewers usually just read the manuscript. However with a lot of experience reviewers can often tell from the presented results and the methods description if the research is valid.
If researchers have doubts about the published results they usually do a replication study and then write a *letter to the editor*.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two related but separate processes in play here.
On the one hand, *papers are peer reviewed*, i.e., when you submit a paper describing your experiment, results and conclusions to a conference or journal, two to three peers will review it. They review the *paper* - they typically don't have the time, funding or other requirements to actually re-do your experiment. They will check whether your arguments make sense, whether the experiment you describe can *in principle* be used to address your research question, maybe run a small simulation.
On the other hand, people will try to *replicate your experiment*, i.e., run a similar experiment and see whether they get the same results. (Typically they will run a modification, because straight-up replications are very hard to publish, and publications are *important* to academics.) If you have an exciting result, many people will try to replicate and extend it. If then most of these people cannot replicate your results (take a look at the "replication crisis in psychology"), the excitement of your results will wane.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> but are experiments today actually verified by independent peers?
>
>
>
In some (rare) cases, **yes**.
---
The examples that I have are in Computer Science, where there is a big push lately for articles to share their "*artifacts*", which are environments that allow to reproduce their results.
Major associations such as the IEEE and the ACM now have their own "badges" ([IEEE badge](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/overview-of-ieee-xplore/about-content#reproducibility-badges) and [ACM badges](https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-and-badging-current)) that are awarded only if the artifact is publicly available, if the results can be reproduced, and if the environment is "re-usable" (read, it's easy to tweak their plat-form to test another hypothesis).
Major conferences such as [Discotec](https://www.discotec.org/2023/#discotec-artefact-evaluation-chair) or [POPL](https://popl23.sigplan.org/committee/POPL-2023-artifact-evaluation-artifact-evaluation-committee) now have their "artifact evaluation committee" whose main goal is to check that the results from the papers can be reproduced.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Others have discussed the official process.
Generically, the thing is, the process is messy. There is no megalithic authority presiding over science, nor academia in general. We don't have a "king of science." There is no "pope of academia."
As such, it is possible for a false result to remain unchallenged in the literature for some time. This can be due to honest mistakes or actual fraud or various combinations.
The process of science eventually turns to re-examine old ideas. People are hungry for publication. There are teams and groups and milling armies of people hungry for publication. They search through old journal articles, read them, sit and think "I could re-do that experiment in a couple weeks with stuff in storage at the lab." And many variations on this. They re-do the arithmetic in published articles. They request the raw data. They compare other experimental results reported at other labs.
So, at any given moment, it is quite likely the literature contains many errors, mistakes, and a few (hopefully a very small number) of actual frauds. And science will try to correct them.
As <NAME> said: [Science knows it does not know everything. Otherwise it would stop.](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/hm5z7/dara_obriain_science_doesnt_know_everything/)
Another thing that tends to happen is that a result becomes irrelevant due to advances that move us past it. As a trivial example that nobody probably cares about: Suppose somebody claimed they could make electronic vacuum tubes to perform a certain way, but that their result was wrong. The advent of transistors moved us away from vacuum tubes, so nobody cares anymore about the performance of tubes. Possibly such an incorrect result from 60 years ago might hang around in the journals and never get challenged. So there is a category of knowledge that one should take extra caution about accepting as authoritative, because the process of science dropped the topic.
So you can recognize a healthy science endeavour by the presence of people questioning the results. They need to be doing it in a well based manner, not simply sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la." They need to understand the issues, the theories, the current state of things. And then they need to be free to ask questions and make critiques. If there is *nobody* questioning a result that is a warning that the science has gone moribund.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: When laypeople are introduced to the idea of replication, they imagine scientists constantly redoing every paper that comes out, to "check it". At least I did. This is not the case in most mainstream sciences. The closest thing is when a paper is basically announcing the release of a software - then conceivably a lot of people might give it a try, since it's usually easy (or is it?) to just install and run a software on your computer.
This does not mean there is no replication. To be sure, there *is* a replication crisis, in the sense that we have *too many* studies that should be replicable but aren't. But it's important to remember that **a lot** of science can and is replicated.
The replication does not take the form of a researcher going to their PI, and submitting a 20-page document titled "Proposal for Comprehensive Replication of Jones et al. 2022". Replication is rarely a discrete project, it is embedded in novel research. The rare exception is extremely high profile and controversial work - for example, the Yamanaka induced pluripotency protocol inspired many outright reproduction attempts.
A lot of science these days is not "from scratch", but building upon and refining previous studies. Say Smith 2019 discovered that red M&Ms cure cancer in mice. Murphy 2024 might then test different chemical extracts of red M&Ms across various mutant mice, and discover that a specific chemical is responsible for the effect by acting on a certain gene - such a study might often begin with a "sanity check" by repeating a simple version of the original Smith 2019 experiment. Indeed the Smith 2019 regimen may serve as a baseline or control for evaluating the additional claims of Murphy 2024.
Another common situation is when published results are assumed to be true, and an experiment is set up such that if the assumption is false the experiment will produce nonsense results. For example, imagine that <NAME> decides to feed some mice only the filling of red M&Ms, while other mice are fed only the shell. It's expected that either group will either be cured of cancer or not. But if all mice die of chemical poisoning, that obviously raises some questions about the results claimed in Smith 2019. It is often possible, with clever experimental design, to "cover" validation of past results as well as probe the actual hypothesis of interest.
You also mention cost. However, you make the false assumption that reproduction always costs as much as the original experiment. Think of it this way - if you decided to sail from Europe to America, would you need to be an equal to Columbus? A big sink of money, and time, therefore money, in original research is trial and error. There are a lot of unknowns about what experiment *would* work, so it costs a lot to perform it. However, reproducers can skip all that - with the benefit of hindsight they can avoid the false starts.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I might be worth thinking about science from a [Kuhn-ian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions) point of view, rather than a [Popperian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery) one.
Start with the somewhat surprising assumption that all scientific conclusions are really models of how the world works, and that all models will eventually be shown to be false to some degree.
In Kuhn's model scientists conduct studies under the assumptions of the current Paradigm (i.e. the set of models that people assume to be true). As long as the results of those studies produce data that makes sense under the current paradigm, they support its truth/usefulness of the models that make up the current paradigm. To the extent that those studies propose new models, they become part of the paradigm. Thus we build up "sandcastles", each new theory based on the validty of the those that came before it, and the success of the new thoeries support the validity of the old. But over time, anomolous results accumulate that can't be explained by the current paradigm. At first these can just be ignored, or explained away, but eventually the weight of anomolies becomes so heavy that the models on which the whole paradigm collapses and you have a scientific revolution, or paradigm-shift. The things that survive this shift will continue to form the foundations on which the new sandcastle is built, and overtime will be compressed to form sandstone.
As well as happening at a macro-level (relativity replacing newtonian physics for eg), it also happens at a micro-level. If a paper is published proposing X and providing an experiment that supports it, rather than trying to replicate those results, someone will say "well, if X is true, then perhaps Y is also true", and they will conduct an experiment assuming X is true. If those results are positive, they lend support to X, if they fail, then the probably don't in one go disprove X, but they might start to add question marks to it. If there are enough such results, people will start looking round for other theories to based their investigations on. This usually doesn't happen in a big bang (like it would do at the macro-level), but mostly just people drifting away from believe X - its not demosntrated false, it just that those that don't base their science on it tend to be more successful.
One downside of this process is that it is slow, and at any one time only those with a deep knowledge of the whole field will really have a good idea of what the field believes to be true or not at any given time. In fact, at any given time it would be very hard for someone to say "here is a list of things that people in field A believe to be definately true". We will only really know what was a good call and what not decades or even centuries into the future.
This is of course no good when your results are needed for practical purposes (like treating diseaes). A couple of things to observe here is that even if we can't say for certain that X is true, if you had to bet your life on X or not X, you'd be better off betting on X, even if you only have a qualified belief in it being true. The second is that the medical and health fields are fields were replications really do happen. There are often multiple clinical trials into the effect of a particular exposure or class of drugs. These are generally collected together in meta-analyses which collate all to evidence for a single question to see what the evidence is in aggregate.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/17
| 853
| 3,755
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate student in computer science, and my university has a rule of prerequisite that one should have a sufficient computer (exactly the same word my university uses) to work outside of campus. Although my university is in China, it uses a British university system.
I have a desktop for this and I have used it for three years to study with no problem, until today the professor of one of my modules designed a coding assessment where each student must bring a laptop to a lecture hall with no computers to take this assessment. In addition, he requires that while taking the assessment one must record their face and screen (probably to prevent cheating). Besides of my desktop, I only have a tablet used for note-taking in lectures, which is obviously insufficient for coding and running multiple tasks simultaneously.
So the question is, is it right for the professor to request that everyone must bring a laptop for this, given that the university only requires a **computer**? If it is not, how can I protest against this?<issue_comment>username_1: The first step is to check whether your university provides laptops for students. For example, at my university students can borrow laptops from the university library.
If this is not the case, then inform the professor that you don't have a laptop, and thus cannot bring one. It seems to be that this assessment really ought to happen in a computer lab. Trying to prevent cheating if people use their own laptops is a very weird idea anyway.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your question title asks "is it right?" Later on the text you change that to "is it reasonable?" (Edit: the question was edited after I posted this answer, but the point remains)
It is not right for a professor to add requirements to the syllabus after the course has started, especially requirements that cost students money.
It is, however, a very reasonable requirement to ask CS students to own and bring a laptop to class or lab. I'm a professor and I do that all the time, even though the University has no such requirement. Carpentry apprentices are also required to bring their own hammers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Of course it is. Don't expect the school to give you one. Pay for it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Arno's answer is a good one (+1 from me and it is currently the accepted answer). But as a general rule it would not be unreasonable for a computer science course to require a laptop, with certain minimum specifications (e.g., camera, WiFi, recent OS, etc.).
The analogy with a carpentry course is a good one. A carpentry course could require all students to bring tools meeting specific requirements (not just "any" hammer, but a particular type/size/weight, etc.) Or an art course may require the students to have particular supplies to do required projects. All of these are reasonable if the specifics are available on day one of the course, or possibly even in advance of the course. Really no different, except for the cost of a decent laptop, than requiring particular textbooks. (Actually, some textbooks cost more than some laptops...)
But requiring a laptop late in a course does not make sense. While laptops are quite common for students, a desktop can be far more ergonomically friendly and the combination of a good desktop with a large monitor + a tablet can be comparable to a good laptop. Except for college students and people who travel a lot, I actually recommend desktop computers to a lot of people - many of them don't even realize it is an option any more, and in fact OP's professor may not be aware of the many reasons why someone might have a desktop instead of a laptop.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/05/17
| 790
| 3,150
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a tenured professor in a public university in USA,
with 9-month salary.
This Summer, I have been assigned to teach a Summer class, and I just found out that I will *not* be paid to do that (yes, 0% of salary).
Will it be reasonable to refuse to teach this course in such a situation? Will such refusal be sufficient reason for me to be disciplined?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is reasonable to turn down summer teaching assignments if they do not benefit you. This would be doubly true if you were not being paid.
Your situation sounds sufficiently unusual that I wonder if some institutional norms are in play. I would suggest “refusing” in a way that seeks to gently clarify those norms. Something like “I have just learned that the summer course is to be offered without pay. Is this correct, or have I misunderstood? If that is the case, I will unfortunately be unable to teach it. I am happy to discuss teaching this topic when I am back on contract and the course will be counted toward my teaching load. ”
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally, a 9month Tenured isn't obligated to take summer classes without compensation. Also, typically a Tenured would not take more than two consecutive summer classes. It tilts towards *illegality*.
However, it is not uncommon for some universities or school or department to include a clause in their policy along the line of ... Summer classes will be assigned based on the best interests of the university/school/dept. What is '*best interest*' is left imagining!
PS: even at that, not that the Tenured can just be bamboozled or compelled with recourse.
Kindly check your institution policy and take it from there. If you have union, get feedback from there: they might want to take it up for you.
If your policy has a resolution clause, explore the route provided.
If you're being singled for '*no pay*', raised it firmly with facts yet respectfully. It might sit on #discrimination leg.
[Edit] Might be worthwhile scanning through the #reddit post [The legality of Requiring Work Over Summer for 9 Month Contracts](https://www.reddit.com/r/Professors/comments/nx4rl4/the_legality_of_requiring_work_over_summer_for_9/).
NB: *any advice/comment bothering on law on a faceless forum shouldn't be construed as legal advice*.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Unethical, wrong, exploitative from the university? Yes. Grounds for disciplinary action against the professor? Hmm. Maybe. It really depends on your contract. Do you have a union? Ask the grievance officer. As others have said in comments, it really depends on the exact language of the contract. Most people think that tenure is some generally-agreed term, akin to a constitutional right, but in reality it's just a specific contract between the university and you. In general, it protects you from firing due to speech inside of the classroom, but tenured professors have been fired for all sorts of reasons, large and small, including classroom speech. Some contracts have enough loopholes to drive a truck through. So yes, bring up the issue, but tread carefully.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/17
| 1,805
| 7,925
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received a written offer from a US university (University A) for a tenure track position which I signed and returned after agreeing on all the negotiating terms. However, I have not heard back from the University (Provost's office) regarding the official background check and onboarding process for over a month now. The department chair is usually responsive, and we had several email conversations about and around my starting date this August. Having said all this, I am still waiting to hear from University A more specifically provost's office, and from my end, tensions are mounting as I have already rejected an offer from another university (University B) and stopped interviewing at other places. The University B offer that I rejected worked differently and completed the background check before sending out the written offer, which was pretty quick.
Now that I am left with nothing but to wait and hear from University A, I am wondering if there is a chance that University A might rescind its offer at this stage.<issue_comment>username_1: First of all, congratulations!
This is extremely unlikely. Once you signed the offer, it is a legal commitment that the university made.
In particular, rescinding this offer now leaves the university liable. In the US, you can sue them for significant damages (you said it yourself - you just rejected an offer from another university).
There's probably some discussions that are still happening, or just general admin nonsense that needs to be sorted out. I wouldn't worry.
You can ping the department head again to just politely remind them that you are waiting for confirmation. You can also ask things about your move, like putting you in touch with real-estate agents, classes you will be teaching etc. This way it won't seem like you're just hassling them.
**Edit:**
Though the laws differ by state, you are very likely to be entitled for damages if they rescind your offer. Some states (e.g. Massachusetts) would even consider a verbal offer a binding contract. In addition, the reputational damage that the university will suffer from pulling a stunt like this is not worth rescinding your offer.
As an additional data point - it took my university (in the US) time to set up the background check as well. This is because those are usually run by an external firm that specializes in this sort of thing, and they might be overwhelmed.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: A borderline response that's closer to an answer than a comment: I'm in precisely the same situation you are and it really hasn't crossed my mind to be concerned about this. From the university's perspective they have until early August at absolute latest to get a criminal background check done and it's totally routine. They just happened to initiate that process for me Tuesday, and the report was finished by Wednesday.
If you have no criminal history it's not worth worrying about this. The only situations where you don't end up starting a job with this employer in the fall is one so globally catastrophic that it will be the least of your problems. And I mean that seriously: Every story I've heard even about, e.g., COVID is that all but the smallest schools honored employment offers that were already signed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: *Since this is a legal question, the exact answer depends on your jurisdiction and the terms of the relevant offer. If necessary, you should seek legal advice from an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction. Below I will give some basic information that applies in most jurisdictions.*
The typical legal position in such cases is that a binding employment contract exists once there is an offer and acceptance (with consideration and an intent to create legal relations), which appears to have occurred here. An exception to this can occur if an essential term is not yet agreed, in which case courts may find that the agreement is not sufficiently complete to be legally binding. However, my understanding is that courts have typically viewed employment contracts as binding even if the start date has not yet been agreed (and have usually imposed some implied term here). In cases where an employment offer is conditional on background checks, etc., it may be a "conditional offer" which gives rise to a slightly different kind of contract (see related answer [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/175865/175871#175871)). From what you have described, it sounds extremely likely that you have a binding contractual employment relationship with this university(at least conditional on background checks) that gives rise to some employment entitlements to you.
Since it is likely that there is already a binding contract here, the university cannot just rescind its offer. Assuming your background check does not raise problems, if the university does not want to follow through on the role then it will need to terminate your employment in accordance with the relevant rules for termination. If this occurs then you may have a valid cause of action for breach of contract, with damages taking account of lost opportunity (e.g., turning down another offer). Laws relating to termination of employment contracts vary significantly by jurisdiction, in terms of allowable causes and notice for termination, and entitlements/damage that may accrue on termination.
As some practical advice here, continue to correspond with the university by email to make it clear that you expect to start in August, and that any delays in starting will have an adverse financial impact. This will put the university on written notice of the adverse effects of its delays, which will put you in a stronger position if this later escalates into a legal dispute. If things get to a point where you are really concerned, go and see an employment lawyer to get advice.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Posters and commenters are, in my view, addressing two different issues:
1. The OP's question, which is asking if the university can rescind a written offer.
2. Should the OP worry, ie is it likely that the university is walking back its offer.
The short answers are:
1. Yes.
2. No.
Long answers:
1. As correctly pointed by @Bryan Krause, most states in the US have hire-at-will laws. This means that an employer can fire you, at any moment, for any reason, and without explanation other than telling you "get out." (the only exception are protected categories, such as race, gender, disability, etc.) This includes firing you before your start date. This changes with your particular circumstances, e.g. if there's a faculty union, although you'd have to check if you are a member of the union before you pay dues, since you have not started. If it's a public university, different rules apply too. If there's an employee manual with a "just cause" clause, then then it depends on the exact language. And, of course, the exact laws of your state. But the point still stands: in the US hire-at-will means fire-at-will.
2. Welcome to academia and get used to the incompetence of university administrators. I would not be surprised if your paperwork is stuck between two secretaries, if the provost has a foot-high stack of papers they have to sign and ignored for months, if the admin allowed the department to hire you but did not allocate the funds and is now scrambling to find the money. At my university, it is not uncommon for a simple matter to require 10 signatures, all in "wet ink" (as admins call it), so the paper must travel the university several times over, many times getting lost and the process restarted. In this context, it is not unusual to take more than a month for a complicated matter like a new hire with background checks etc. Heck, when I was hired back in the day, I think I heard from the provost when they hired me in March, and then again in August.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/17
| 1,445
| 6,019
|
<issue_start>username_0: Your student is writing a paper and you think it will be rejected with a probability of 99%.
Your student would like to submit it anyway.
Would you submit it? Why?
More specifically:
* Is it **ok** to submit it? Isn't this "bad behavior" because you are wasting the reviewers' time?
* Is it **worth** to submit it? Can reviews help you improve your paper even when the paper is not ready for submission?
* Is it **safe** to submit it? Can this damage your reputation if the reviews will be public after the decision is out?
**EDIT**
In the case above your name would also be on the paper. Would you have the same opinion / give the same advice to the student even if you are not on the paper?<issue_comment>username_1: Answer to question 1 and to the second sentence of question 2 (based on one of the OP's comments, which says *"However, the paper is not ready for a publication."*):
**No**, it is certainly not ok to submit a paper which you don't think is ready for publication and hope that the reviewer(s) will do your job for you (namely, figuring out how to improve the paper).
If even the authors can't be bothered to polish their own paper, then why should the reviewer(s) do so?
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: No, it's not okay - yes, it is bad behavior to waste reviewers' (and the editor's) time.
Maybe reviewers would help improve the paper, but that's not really their job for a paper in the stage you describe. If you want other people to help improve a paper, bring the paper to them directly and ask for that, rather than surreptitiously soliciting advice by pretending to submit a paper.
No, it's not safe to submit it - not because the reviews are public as they typically are not (are you actually someone who has a student in this case? or are you the student?) but because the editors and potential reviewers are all people in your field, and they'll certainly judge and notice if you have a tendency to submit junk.
I would give this advice equally a) to a student who insisted on submitting their own single-author paper, and b) as reasoning to a student explaining why I do not give permission to submit a paper coauthored with me.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If I were you, I would tell the student that in the present (unready) form you simply cannot allow your name to be on the paper; if the student then wants to publish this paper solo, it is their business, you cannot stop them.
Here would be my reason: In commercial terms, think of your name as a **brand**. Submitting a substandard paper would damage your brand, by undermining the trust that many people in your area (by now) have in your judgement, thoroughness, seriousness, etc. This might not immediately affect you adversely (e.g. regarding grants, refereeing/evaluation requests, treatment of your other submitted papers), but, if your brand is undermined repeatedly, it will definitely happen.
You should never underestimate how much things in academia run on trust (and on flattery, but that's another story).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It is considered an abuse of peer review to knowingly submit papers that you know are not ready for a journal. The peer review process should be exactly that, a review of one's PEERS, peers implying that you actually are a peer of the authors in the sense that you both do same quality work. If a student who's not ready submits, they're essentially counting on the reviewer to do the work and proofreading, and that's not okay.
When I review, I give two documents. My marked up version of the PDF and my report. My report contains my main issues, and if I only have major comments that I don't like, it won't help the student because it'll just sound like I'm being mean or uncharitable.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Why do they want to publish the paper and why are you certain of its rejection?
If you think the paper will be rejected for lack of novelty or other reasons of popularity and prestige, rather than for its soundness, you can pick some publication venues which prioritise soundness (like eLife).
If you think the paper is "not ready yet", but the author still believes it's worth sharing in order to get feedback, get the word out etc. (or just because they need to move on in their life and aren't interested in building a shiny publication CV), just recommend them to publish it as a preprint in a [suitable repository](https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/). The limitations section can provide any needed caveats about the work as is.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: I believe you're asking us the wrong question. You said:
* You think it will be rejected.
* Your student would like to submit it anyway.
That tells me that issue at hand is not whether to submit, but that of mis-communication/mis-understanding between you two. You did not indicate whether the student believes the paper is likely to be accepted; you did not indicate whether you and the student have had a talk about this; you did not indicate whether the student has a motivation for submitting even if assuming failure.
You likely need to have a talk with that student - not just an email exchange - for you both to understand where each is coming from and why. In or after such a talk, additional alternative courses of action other than "do nothing" or "submit paper" are likely to arise.
Just a couple of hypothetical examples:
* Suppose it is important for the student to submit their work in some form, somewhere; but that's the only relevant journal. In that case, perhaps a non-peer-reviewed version uploaded to some place like [ArXiv.org](https://arxiv.org) may satisfy the student's desire to have a paper "up" somewhere.
* Perhaps the student believes you are under-estimating the chances of approval. Do they know something you don't? Or is it the other way around, perhaps they are mis-informed somehow by rumors from their friends/colleagues, which you could dispel?
etc.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/18
| 981
| 3,905
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Facts:**
1. About 18 months ago I submitted a paper claiming the result previously published by Michael is false.
2. The first referee used details in Michael's paper to defend Michael's points, trying hard to invalid all of my claims.
3. The editor rejected my paper and suggests a complete rewriting (reject-and-resubmit).
4. After rewriting, I emailed Michael and Michael never replied.
**My opinions**:
1. I think the first referee's report lacks basic skills and his claims are false. A few experts share the same opinions as mine.
2. I think the first referee is Michael because the first referee is too familiar with every details of Michael's paper.
3. I guess I need to mention in the Conflicts of Interest those facts that Michael did not reply and the referee was incompetent; but I don't know if I need to write a long rebuttal including every details.
**Question:** What is my best action here?
Considering the reports are one-year-old, is it the best action for me to write a reply to that first referee's review?
I usually don't want to harshly criticize someone and I believe that saying harsh words will make the editor think that I am not a decent person.<issue_comment>username_1: The "conflict of interest"-angle is the wrong one here. Basically, the editor already has all the information you have, and even more: The editor knows that Michael is likely to be predisposed to assume that Michael is right and you are wrong. Moreover, the editor has chosen Referee 1 (whether or not they are Michael) because the editor believes Referee 1 would provide valuable input. You just claiming that Referee 1 is incompetent is only going to make you look rude.
A thorough rebuttal, on the other hand, is definitely appropriate. You want to convince the editor that you are right, so you'll want to address all of Referee 1's counterpoints. Part of that might be in your paper itself (point to those paragraphs in the reponses to the referee comments), part of that will be just in the reponses-to-the-referee-comments. Avoid commenting on the competence of the referee, this is irrelevant to your case.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Don't speculate about who the reviewer(s) of your manuscript are. Nothing good can come out of having the knowledge. You don't know if it actually is Michael who reviewed. "Too familiar with every details of Michael's paper" is not conclusive -- it's possible the first reviewer was simply very conscientious and took the time read through Michael's paper in detail. That Michael didn't reply to your email also doesn't mean anything, e.g. a simple explanation is your email went into their spam box.
That said, it's worth pointing out that if your paper claims to falsify Michael's paper, [it is natural to ask Michael to review the paper](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111550/is-it-ok-to-review-a-paper-which-builds-on-my-work). This is because Michael knows their own work better than everyone else, so they will know if you used their model/theory/etc. correctly.
* You should include a rebuttal to the review, because if the journal realizes it's a reject-and-resubmit manuscript (any good EMS will flag such papers), then they'll be expecting a rebuttal. Omitting it makes it seem like you didn't take the reviewer seriously.
* You should not criticize the reviewer. Criticize their comments, not the reviewer, especially since you don't know who the reviewer is.
* If it comes to it, you can request Michael recuse as a reviewer. It's probable that the EMS will have such an option for you to exclude competitors who might be biased against your paper. However, there's a good chance you'll be asked to explain why the people you name are not suitable, and "I think they reviewed my first manuscript and are incompetent" will not win you any points with the editor.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/05/18
| 938
| 4,023
|
<issue_start>username_0: In order to understand if I really want and can pursue a PhD program I would like to see some real PhD Thesis and especially some real PhD plans from real world so I could at least approximately realize what the final product looks like (in terms of volume, structure, etc.) and what the real plan could be.
Why I'm asking:
* I'm thinking about making a PhD in AI/NLP
* Reading around the topic on the internet doesn't make it clear yet.
* Asking for some great works - mostly because at my level I probably wouldn't tell the great from not so great myself.
If in the time of doing your own PhD (or before or after that) you met some thesis/plan that really got you thinking "oh, that's what a great plan should look like, I definitely can learn a lot from it" - that would be what I'm looking for.
Sorry if the question is too naive.
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: Every university library keeps a copy of every PhD thesis from every PhD awarded at that institution. That's the place to start.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Go online to the university or universities you are interested in and search their repository of dissertations/theses. They are usually easy to find and freely accessible. Often they are organized using eCommons or another similar database/repository. [Here is one](https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/etd/) that comes up through a simple google search.
Unfortunately, I doubt anyone can point you to a specific example since most people do not make a habit of reading dissertations (except the committee that approved it).
I think it's also worth mentioning that while this will give you an idea of what a finished product looks like, you're not going to find the *plan* they followed to get there. In fact, the point of a dissertation is to produce a coherent product and so the finished version is going to look put together even if the road to get there was bumpy.
And, at least superficially, a "great" dissertation is going to look very similar to a not-so-great one. Most places have fairly specific formatting and content requirements (field, topic, and institution dependent) so even if you did find an objectively good one it might not be generalizable.
I think it's a fine idea to look at some dissertations/theses to get an idea of what you would need to produce. It seems like the real question is "how do I learn what *specifically* is expected to earn a PhD in field X", and the answer to that is to reach out to faculty at institutions you are interested in and ask them questions. See what they would be expecting, what their institution specific process is, how much support you will receive in the program etc...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I would say that a great thesis and a very well planned PhD are not necessarily equivilent things. While a student who had a very clear plan throughout their candidature would likely produce a higher quality thesis than if they had less direction, I am sure there is not a direct relation between the two.
Due to the nature of research, no plan can guarantee sucsess, as this is down to many factors, not the least being some luck. The planning part of a PhD is largely dependant on the advisor of the project, as they are the ones with the existing expertise in the area (at least when you're beginning to work) and should be able to give advice and direction.
You have two separate things you can investigate, the first being the general quality of students work with the advisors you might be interested in working with. You have noted that it can be very difficult for you to gauge that right now, but if you see that these students produce well-cited works (this is not a true metric of quality of course, but it does at least show how popular these works in the community).
The second investigation could be, if appropriate, to speak to past students of these advisors. These students might be able to shed some insight into how their experience during their PhD was.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/19
| 1,228
| 4,873
|
<issue_start>username_0: Basically, it is as the title says.
I have received an invitation to be a member of a grant proposal committee. They have offered a compensation for each working day (which includes interview sessions). Now, my department asks me to
1. either give them back the entire compensation in a special account, or
2. register vacation days for the days I have worked for this committee.
I was shocked because I never heard about that, the funding institution never mentioned anything like this, and when I asked my "manager" about that in the past, they did not mention anything about this.
The "rationale" (which I find very unconvincing) is that they already pay me so if I do something "Extracurricular" I should register it as vacations, or pay back whatever I have received.
Is this standard practice? Can I avoid it somehow?
Edit: this is The Netherlands and this task is *[not](https://www.utwente.nl/en/service-portal/employment-personal-development/terms-of-employment/ancillary-activities-nevenwerkzaamheden#:%7E:text=The%20definition%20of%20ancillary%20activities,your%20job%20at%20the%20University.)* considered as ancillary activity and so that Collective Labor Agreement about reimbursing the compensation does not apply.<issue_comment>username_1: There are often rules that govern how much you can work "on the side". It makes sense that you cannot do additional paid work during the hours that you are already employed. So at a minimum there are usually rules that ensure you are "on your own time" when doing additional work. So what you describe does not sound weird to me. Whether there is anything you can do about it is something you need to discuss with a legal expert. Whether that is worth it is something you need to decide.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Since you are in the Netherlands, your employment is most likely subject to the Collective Labour Agreement for Dutch Universities. [The latest copy I could find can be found here](https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/documenten/CAO/2022/UNL-18575-07-CAO%20Nederlandse%20Universiteiten%202022%20%28EN%29%20(2).pdf). I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but Article 1.14 and 1.15 are potentially relevant. These basically say that you need prior permission for certain ancillary activities, and that you can only accept reimbursements with permission from your employer. Whether serving on a grant panel is an ancillary activity or not is another question, but it seems that the article about reimbursements applies regardless.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your employer pays you for certain hours. They own those hours. Most institutions are happy for you to use some of their time for academic services that don't directly benefit them, but of course if there is any extra compensation for that time then it belongs to the owner of the time, i.e. your employer. In most cases (reviewing a paper, etc) this is zero, and your employer doesn't particularly need you to tell them every time "I have reviewed a paper, and here is the zero Euros I got paid". But the same principle applies - all the compensation belongs to them. In some cases they might decide to waive their right to it, but that is their decision to make.
I would just take them as holiday days. Then you are being compensated for time that belongs to you, so you get to keep the money. (Of course, this assumes that the compensation is enough to make it worthwhile.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Very surprised by this situation happening in the Netherlands and equally surprised by all the answers so far.
Compensation for interview panels is often ridiculously difficult to actually get transferred to your university account when you want to (which is the better solution IMHO since otherwise most of the $$$ goes to taxes). So in that respect, I'm all in favor. Just make sure to get it transferred to/added to your lab account so you are the one in control of spending it.
Knowing the system, I assume we're talking about a couple hundred euros at most. Nice to have as unrestricted funds for your lab, but not substantial for your university's budget. So don't add it to the pile.
As for work done during hours: Aren't most of us doing this on evenings and weekends??? I think it is really weird that there is talk of this work being done "on the clock". Does that mean you should never work more than stated in your contract? Good luck with that in academia...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Engage work to rule, aka malicious compliance.
If you're paid to work 37 hours (insert your actual time here) per week, then actually work that.
Then apply for leave for the time you're doing grant panel things, and all is good and above board.
You're fulfilling your contractual obligations.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/05/19
| 1,906
| 7,637
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does anyone have any information about the alpha-beta-gamma marking system?
What are/were the criteria for the different grades and how were these then collated into degree-class marks?
Is this system still in use?
Addition:
Thank you for all these answers.
I unfortunately neglected to specify that I meant something other than the use of alpha and beta quality marks in maths at Cambridge.
Based on one paper I've read (Stray, "The Shift from Oral to Written Examination: Cambridge and Oxford 1700–1900"), fleeting (parodic???) mentions of marks like "beta plus plus query plus" and "alpha gamma" (I seem to remember Parfit describes Kant's ethics like this somewhere…), and personal reminiscence (although I think I might remember one MML supervisor at Cambridge in the 90s marking like this, I definitely do remember conversations with people from Oxford where they spoke of needing a certain number of alphas to get a first—akin to what is described here [https://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/guide/guide\_6.html](https://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Emanc0049/guide/guide_6.html)), I think it was more of an Oxford thing.<issue_comment>username_1: I did maths at Cambridge in the mid 90s. Back then at least
* Alphas and betas (I don't remember gammas) were awarded for how thoroughly & correctly you answered individual questions. In addition to the normal mark-scheme points: if you completely answered the question you got an alpha, and a near-miss was a beta.
* To get a particular class you needed a number of alphas in addition to enough points. If you had a mismatch then your paper went to moderation.
The idea being (I assume) to require deep knowledge in a few areas and not just breadth. I got the impression this was maths only though, and other subjects didn't use it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am only aware of this being used for maths at Cambridge (and I think is still in use, although the specifics have probably changed over the years).
It is to encourage answering a small number of complete questions rather than trying to pick up a few marks on many questions. This is necessary because of the peculiarity of the Cambridge exam system. Unlike other universities, where you choose what modules you study and then only sit exams in those modules, at Cambridge all students sit the same exams, which have questions available on all modules, and you just answer the questions relevant to modules you have studied. So there are many more questions available than any student would be able to solve in the time available. Normally much more work and understanding is required to get the last half the marks on any question than the first half, and so without this system the best strategy might be to get a basic understanding of many courses, enough to do parts of questions but not necessarily enough to actually answer a full question.
The system was something like, for a question marked out of 20, 15+ marks would get an alpha, and 7+ would get a beta. These would be bonuses, in addition to your marks on the question, rather than replacing them. So your final score would be X number of marks, Y alphas and Z betas. For some shorter questions you would only be able to get a beta. This information was, of course, widely available to students.
For the division between first class and upper second, the most important thing is the number of alphas. For lower divisions, or for borderline cases, number of betas comes into play, and even further down is total number of marks. The boundaries have sometimes been based on specific linear combinations of X, Y and Z.
The taught masters (the fourth year, hence known as "Part III") has a more normal modular system. However, modules still get graded as alpha, beta or gamma (gamma being positive marks but less than beta). In fact they could also be modified here (but not in the undergraduate case) - you can get alpha-minus or beta-plus. Gamma is not used in the undergraduate course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This is anecdotal, about Oxford in the period 1970-2000.
Being a mathematician I did not use this code: we expressed our examination marks in the form N alpha^m beta^n, meaning an overall points total of N, with m questions almost complete, and n questions with substantial answers. However, I lived among those who did use the code, and think I understood it in broad outline.
Basically the code was developed in the first half of the 20th century. At that time students in Oxford were classified in their final examinations as gaining Honours in the First, Second, or Third Classes. (There were also special cases: a Fourth Class; one might not get Honours but be awarded a Pass and so get one's degree; or one might Fail.) Basically alpha means First Class, beta Second Class, gamma Third class). But although the final consolidated mark was I, II, or III academics cannot resist making more and more refined distictions and so a more elaborate system developed.
alpha
alpha -
alpha --
alpha ---
alpha beta
beta alpha
beta +++
beta ++
beta +
beta
beta -
beta --
beta ---
beta gamma
gamma beta
gamma +++
gamma ++
gamma +
gamma
gamma -
gamma --
gamma ---
A further elaboration was that as a further refinement the final + or - might be preceded by a ? sign: so for example beta +?+ is better than beta + but not as good as beta ++.
I think that sometimes alpha + etc were used, but purists insisted that it was impossible to be more excellent than alpha.
I do not think that delta was used seriously: as I recall it "s." [ i.e. satis] denoted "Pass" and "n.s." denoted failure.
I think that a mark alpha gamma really signified that the examiner could not decide whether this was brilliance or nonsense: such a mark would have to be resolved to something on the scale before being used.
You ask for the criteria for achieving these marks. That was not how academics at that time operated. Each student was somewhere in one of the Classes: the examiner just had to discern where, and allot the correct symbol. But do not think that this was a random process. When in the late 20C serious studies were made to discover how consistent the assessment was in given subjects, it became clear that there was a very high degree of agreement between different markers.
In Finals a student would do usually eight 3-hour written papers, answering in each perhaps four questions from a menu of perhaps a couple of dozen. Each paper would be read and independently given a mark by two examiners; if there was a discrepancy the two examiners would discuss and produce a reconciled mark.
The whole panel of Examiners (six or eight) of a subject would then meet and produce the Class List. By the eighties there were usually overt conventions about how they would use the marks of the eight papers to do this. But there were a variety of conventions. However they usually looked at the overall (dare I say average?) picture and then required for a First a minimum number of leading alphas and a maximum number of low scoring papers; and similarly for the other classes.
A disconnect with reality occurred when the University divided the Second Class into II-i and II-ii, and the decline in the number of III awarded, and subsequently the decline in the number of II-ii. Although the system may still be used informally all official processing of examination marks in now (I believe) done in terms of University Standardised Marks. This is a 100 point scale where, to comply with national protocols, 70 signifies a I, 60 a II-i, 50 a II-ii, 40 a III, 30 a Pass.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/19
| 322
| 1,349
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wrote a grant for 10 whiteboards for my classroom last year. The grant was not a group grant, but an individual project grant. I used them for this year and am looking to move schools.
Would I be entitled to take these whiteboards with me, or are they attached to the school? I cannot find the specifics in the grant stating this, other than it was required to be used for this school year.<issue_comment>username_1: This would depend on the details of the grant. It is likely, however, that the grant was to the institution, not to you as an individual. I'm surprised it isn't clear in the grant. Perhaps it can be made clear if you ask the funding agency.
You might also need to negotiate it with your institution so you don't get accused of theft by taking them.
I've had grants that specified myself as the recipient, though they were from companies. And, even then, the institution managed the funds to assure they were used properly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It usually depends on the school policy, not the grant policy. Usually things bought with grants transfer to the school, then the school disposes as per their own policy. In my experience, there's no way to predict, and you have to ask. Don't take without asking, though. If there is a policy against it, it's grounds for firing.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/19
| 454
| 1,486
|
<issue_start>username_0: If an edited transcript of a lecture which was given is published in a journal, should the citation style for the transcript be the same as for a paper published as part of conference proceedings? (Thanks Anonymous\_M for clarification.)
See [image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uZlaj.png) for example.<issue_comment>username_1: Look up the Information for Authors of the journal. Normally they specify how they want citations.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: For the journal, use the journal item type in Zotero (since you're using Zotero). Select the appropriate reference style required by the journal (information for authors).
For the transcript, follow the guide provided by the journal as well.
For a more technical solution, you might want to engage the Zotero forum.
[Possibly out of scope of Academia]
Zotero has a 'catch all' field in all item type: '**Extra**'
Make good use of it as much as it's practicable.
The following Zotero forums might give you a pointer - *transcript of a lecture*
* <https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/103076/>
* [https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/93801/how-to-cite-lectures-in-the-ieee-citation-style-using-zotero#:~:text=%60Author.,lecture%20%5BType%20of%20Medium%5D](https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/93801/how-to-cite-lectures-in-the-ieee-citation-style-using-zotero#:%7E:text=%60Author.,lecture%20%5BType%20of%20Medium%5D).
* <https://www.zotero.org/support/kb/item_types_and_fields>
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/20
| 1,114
| 5,017
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know several doctoral students in the field of deep learning. Their main job is to be the technical leader (full-time job, even not taking doctoral courses) in the company. They only propose research topics and write papers, and all experiments are completed by other engineers. These doctoral students will be the first authors of the papers and ultimately earn a degree based on these papers, is this behavior ethical?
---
I think I should describe it more clearly. These doctoral students mainly play the role of managers, who have **strong management skills** but **limited theoretical knowledge** of related disciplines. For example, when they see that the diffusion model is very popular recently, they will ask engineers to investigate the diffusion model and explain it to them, and then they will arrange engineers to test the effect of the diffusion model on related interdisciplinary tasks. If the engineers encounter difficulties, they will arrange for other people with the knowledge and ability to assist as need.<issue_comment>username_1: The contribution of a Ph.D. thesis needs to be attributable to the person and fulfill requirements such as significance and originality. It can depend on the work of others, even to the extent that this work is indispensable.
Proposing research topics sounds a bit weak, but we do not know the details of their importance. In my opinion, a proposal that lays procedure out such that the mythical average capable engineer of patent law following the established procedures of their field can perform the research and obtain the results is an independent, attributable contribution that derives its significance from the significance of the complete research. There is no requirement that a researcher has to do everything in the research.
Indeed, such a requirement would quickly lead to abstruse situations. If I were to use (not yet, but almost existing) AI to write simple Python scripts, the result is mine. If I ask someone to write the Python scripts for me, do the results stop being mine? Or, if I were to write the Python scripts myself, do I need to attribute the results equally to the implementers and designers of NumPy and similar modules? Similarly, would research in epidemiology only be valid for a Ph.D. if all the testing and the sample analysis involved would be done by the person aspiring to the doctorate? With other words, some collaboration and some reliance on the work by others is to be expected.
I am not sure about your experience with research, but from my experience I can assure you that some of the most difficult challenges in research is finding good research topics. Ordering a competent engineer to perform an experiment does not invalidate the contribution of the one ordering it.
Ultimately, the ethics of the situation depends on the details of the situation, most importantly the novelty and significance of the topics proposed as well as how easy it would be for someone in the field to perform these tasks. It could well be that there is little significance in what the Ph.D. candidates are contributing, but it could also be a lot. The decision first rests with the Ph.D. committee at their universities, who presumably can read between the lines in order to assess the individual contributions. If you think yourself competent to judge that there is no significant contribution and that inferiors are asked to do the research for the superior, then you could (anonymously) inform the chair of the department, who could then raise the issue with the committee members if they deem your concern credible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You mentioned
>
> *They {~~only~~} propose research topics and write papers, and all experiments are completed by other engineers*
>
>
>
Depending on what *all experiments are completed by other engineers* is, the ***research*** is *completed* by them (the doctoral student).
The *engineers* can be seen in the same light as *technicians/programmers* working in (university) lab.
At times, doctoral students and postdocs get *stuck* in the coding, because of the *search* for novelty, and neglect the *research*. There should be balance.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If a PhD student does work that a university believes merits awarding them a PhD, then the student is acting ethically. The university is the one that decides what the standard is for receiving a PhD carrying its name. If they set the standard too low and award PhD degrees for too little work, or for work that doesn’t develop appropriate research skills, the university will quickly develop a reputation as little more than a diploma mill and its degrees will be seen as worthless.
The above analysis is assuming that the student is not misleading the university about the scope of the work they are doing. If the student pretends to be doing work that others are doing, obviously that is unethical behavior and constitutes serious misconduct.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/20
| 964
| 4,275
|
<issue_start>username_0: When applying for PhD programs in the US, as an international student, typically 3 letters of recommendation are required.
The exact question that I want to ask is that if it is possible for all the three letters to be written by professors in the institute where I did my undergrad from.<issue_comment>username_1: The contribution of a Ph.D. thesis needs to be attributable to the person and fulfill requirements such as significance and originality. It can depend on the work of others, even to the extent that this work is indispensable.
Proposing research topics sounds a bit weak, but we do not know the details of their importance. In my opinion, a proposal that lays procedure out such that the mythical average capable engineer of patent law following the established procedures of their field can perform the research and obtain the results is an independent, attributable contribution that derives its significance from the significance of the complete research. There is no requirement that a researcher has to do everything in the research.
Indeed, such a requirement would quickly lead to abstruse situations. If I were to use (not yet, but almost existing) AI to write simple Python scripts, the result is mine. If I ask someone to write the Python scripts for me, do the results stop being mine? Or, if I were to write the Python scripts myself, do I need to attribute the results equally to the implementers and designers of NumPy and similar modules? Similarly, would research in epidemiology only be valid for a Ph.D. if all the testing and the sample analysis involved would be done by the person aspiring to the doctorate? With other words, some collaboration and some reliance on the work by others is to be expected.
I am not sure about your experience with research, but from my experience I can assure you that some of the most difficult challenges in research is finding good research topics. Ordering a competent engineer to perform an experiment does not invalidate the contribution of the one ordering it.
Ultimately, the ethics of the situation depends on the details of the situation, most importantly the novelty and significance of the topics proposed as well as how easy it would be for someone in the field to perform these tasks. It could well be that there is little significance in what the Ph.D. candidates are contributing, but it could also be a lot. The decision first rests with the Ph.D. committee at their universities, who presumably can read between the lines in order to assess the individual contributions. If you think yourself competent to judge that there is no significant contribution and that inferiors are asked to do the research for the superior, then you could (anonymously) inform the chair of the department, who could then raise the issue with the committee members if they deem your concern credible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You mentioned
>
> *They {~~only~~} propose research topics and write papers, and all experiments are completed by other engineers*
>
>
>
Depending on what *all experiments are completed by other engineers* is, the ***research*** is *completed* by them (the doctoral student).
The *engineers* can be seen in the same light as *technicians/programmers* working in (university) lab.
At times, doctoral students and postdocs get *stuck* in the coding, because of the *search* for novelty, and neglect the *research*. There should be balance.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If a PhD student does work that a university believes merits awarding them a PhD, then the student is acting ethically. The university is the one that decides what the standard is for receiving a PhD carrying its name. If they set the standard too low and award PhD degrees for too little work, or for work that doesn’t develop appropriate research skills, the university will quickly develop a reputation as little more than a diploma mill and its degrees will be seen as worthless.
The above analysis is assuming that the student is not misleading the university about the scope of the work they are doing. If the student pretends to be doing work that others are doing, obviously that is unethical behavior and constitutes serious misconduct.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/20
| 672
| 2,785
|
<issue_start>username_0: Before, referring just to some other question that sounds likely to be the same, e.g., about **can I write: "I/We have developed X?"**, what I am asking about is: *"Let us (you the reader and I the post author) discuss if the use of we in this context is acceptable"*. If you don't get the different meaning of the use of we, don't answer.
For instance, I am talking about the use of "*Let us consider that in the context of this thesis, $x$ is ...*". Or a phrase as the following: "*For this reason, we can assume ...*". When I read something, I think this style really good for explaining difficult topics. But an experienced colleague (post-doc) said that I use **we/us** to often in my PhD thesis. I said that I use it as **we / us in the sense of the reader and writer** exploring the topic together. However, he did not understand what I mean with that. I also think if he really thinks I am talking about me with the phrase we/us makes no sense. It would be crazy because I am only one person. In the feedback of my both supervisors / profs it was not mentioned, although I guess on their corrections and comments they read the section deeply.
Is it bad style or can it be used? Maybe bad feedback? Should I ask my supervisors if that is an issue? What is your opinion on that? Some articles with more information of this discussion?<issue_comment>username_1: Some people think it is OK, and in some fields it is common.
But your examples sound verbose and slightly grating. For example, "Let us consider that in the context of this thesis" could probably be changed to "In this thesis."
I agree with your colleague. I think you should use it less.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your question is based on a false dichotomy. The answer to your literal question is:
**Yes**, it can be used.
**Yes**, it can be bad style.
The above is true for most aspects of writing. Figuring out where your writing falls is the tricky part and arguably can't be done just based on your snippets.
Learning the nuances of academic writing and improving your style takes many years (decades?) of repeated writing. One key element to improve is to take into consideration feedback from others. In particular, your supervisor is a great source of feedback on your writing! You don't need to agree with all their feedback, but if you disagree, try to find out exactly what they are trying to say. Do not just dismiss their concern outright.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think that the mistake you are making is that in academic writing the writer and reader are not exploring the topic together. The reader and writer have distinct roles: The writer makes his/her/their point, and the reader checks if they find that argument convincing.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/20
| 822
| 3,426
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently a 3rd year Math student and currently have one more year till I finish. Currently loving the degree, no problems.
But I'm really running into a giant problem. I fell in love with Physics recently after trying out Upper level Classical mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and after much reading I realized it's indeed the field I'm more interested it.
Keep in mind I like pure math, I'm doing well in my courses and enjoying every second. But it's more so that I like learning math, than actually discovering/inventing new mathematical theorems pertaining solely to pure mathematical systems. But lately I've been enjoying Physics so much more, and strongly feel like it's where I belong.
My math knowledge: I took Real Analysis 1&2, Topology, Compelx Analysis, Measure Theory, Abstract Algebra 1&2, Number theory, Linear Algebra 1&2, Set Theory and lots of other Applied Math courses such as Math Methods, Numerical Analysis 1&2, ODEs and PDEs, and Stats/Prob courses like Probability Theory, Mathematical Statistics, and Statistical Methods. I enjoy all these courses, but I'd feel much more fulfilled if I can apply this knowledge to solve problems in physics than just doing math for the sake of math.
Now unfortunately I cant do a double major (not a thing in my country). Is there a way I'd get accepted to theoretical physics PhD programs by finishing my math degree, studying the necessary physics alone (I'm on good terms with both the Math and Physics faculty so they could certainly vouch for my knowledge, if I manage to reach an appropriate level and prove myself to them) and maybe do the Physics GRE? How much would it affect me if I have no Physics resesech experience (I do have Math research experience with my professors)?
Or should I do a physics undergrad and do research with my professors?
Thank you very much for any advice, and sorry if I said something that might seem bad, offensive or ignorant.
P.S: I should mention now that a masters in Physics in my country is impossible unless I do a bachelors all over again (abroad is a different story).<issue_comment>username_1: This will probably have a different answer in a different country, but for doctoral study in the US, you would probably be considered for admission. It is common here to change fields on start of a doctoral program. There will be advanced physics courses to take, however.
The competition is fierce, however, and you will be competing with others who have had more physics.
But another degree, or changing as an undergrad, isn't required. Letters of recommendation from people who can honestly predict success in physics would be very important.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: First and foremost, there exist physics-related projects on which you can work while being a PhD student at a mathematics department. Here is [one example](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7057708784080535552/) out of many.
Also, both in the US and Europe, with you Math degree you can apply to many PhD programmes in physics or engineering. (If admitted, you will have to take some remedial courses.) Moreover, in some areas, your mathematical background will sooner be an advantage. One example of the kind is furnished by celestial and orbital mechanics or control engineering. Another is QFT, superstrings, quantum gravity (and gravitational physics in general).
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/20
| 1,071
| 4,743
|
<issue_start>username_0: Considering a PhD thesis that use a **problem statement chapter** in the middle of the thesis. The reason for the chapter is that the required background information is only, fully available at this point. Before that (e.g. in the introduction) it make no sense to discuss it in depth because it is to long (5 pages) and to deep for anyone not in the field. It is stated directly in the beginning of the chapter, that this chapter is used to build a deep problem understanding to better assess the solutions developed in the following chapters 6 and 7. It is also mentioned in the introduction of the thesis. The thesis also states that in the second part (also 5 pages) of this chapter, some things/constructs are in this section presented that are used in both parts are presented.
The PhD thesis has the following structure / table of contents:
1. Introduction
2. Foundation
3. Building the First Research Artifact ( = 1 published Paper)
4. Building the Second Research Artifact ( = 1 published Paper)
5. Problem Statement / Challenges and Things Used in the Following both Chapters
6. Doing some Research in Area X on Artifact of 3. and 4. ( = 1 published Paper)
7. Doing some Research in Area Y on Artifact of 3. and 4. ( = 1 published Paper)
8. Conclusion
**Given feedback indicates that some people have issues with such a chapter:**
One (post doc) gave feedback that he does not understand the purpose of the chapter because no concept is presented and asks which RQ is addressed? This feedback was given when the second part with developed things was still in chapter 6 and 7 and the chapter only contained the proble statement.
Other one (prof) gave feedback: interesting but complex. Not sure if RQ is completely addressed? Missing the solution.
Based on those observations, I think it is maybe not common to add such a chapter that only describes / discuss / analyse the problem (i.e. problem statement) and provides no solution. However, I have seen this many times in any kind of theses and think some auxiliary chapter without presenting a concept and evaluating can be used. I think it crazy to make a concept of the problem statement and evaluate it. That makes no sense to me.
Other people seem to be OK with the chapter. So my question is: is it just the fast reading mode of some (academic) people with less concentration and checking for the typical things such as evaluation and concept?
**Are there any guidelines or recommendations how to make such a chapter?** In some theses, it is earlier, e.g., after the foundations, but the other two chapters need to be considered for defining the problem.
If the chapter analyses the problem of research question Z, **can said / written that the research objective of the chapter is: to establish a problem understanding and that it contributes / addresses research question Z by establishing a deep problem understanding**? I never read something like this but is this ok if it should be related to a research question?<issue_comment>username_1: You seem to write a cumulative thesis that combines individual research papers with some introduction. These research papers should be able to stand on their own without the context of the thesis. You submit research papers to journals, not theses.
If you need a problem explained to understand why there is a need for its solution in one of the research papers and appreciate the value of the research paper, it should be included in the research paper. So the need for an extra chapter would point to a problem with the writing of your research papers.
Generally, few people will read an individual cumulative thesis, but many people might read some of the individual papers contained therein. So you should optimize the writing for them to be able to stand on their own. Editors and referees will read the paper, not the thesis.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Chapter 5 shouldn't come out of the blues. The introduction (chapter 1) should give a pointer to it.
---
For PhD by Publication (prospective route) or what some called Thesis by article, the structure/outline should be fine.
Should suffice also for *monologue*
However, the introduction should give a pointer to chapter so that readers will expect it coming and understand why.
The introduction should also briefly *explain* the structure (of the 8 chapters) being followed and why.
Were this to be PhD by Publication (retrospective route), the chapter 5 (problem statement) would have been part of the introduction (which would then be the exegesis/commentary critically explicating the golden thread across the published articles.
PS: For traditional thesis, OP's chapters outline is kinda red herring.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/20
| 611
| 2,726
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had a submission to a Math Journal. I was tracking my paper: its status was under review for more than 5 months. It was rejected without any report from reviewers and I just received a comment from associated editor saying that the subject is more suitable for some other journals. I am confused. Why the editor did not desk reject and after 5 months under review made this decision. Where is referee report?
I would like to add a comment: one of articles in my reference list has a similar subject to my paper and was published in that journal. But they said that it is suitable for some other journals!!!<issue_comment>username_1: "A subject is suited for some other journal" is a polite euphemism for "we could not find anyone to review your paper".
Given that your paper was with editor for 5 months, it is likely that the subject was not too alien for this journal, so the editor tried to find a reviewer, but failed.
Many academic journals find it more difficult to attract reviewers now, as academics worldwide are dealing with growing pressures from teaching, research and administration sides of the job, leaving very little for external *service*, which is often unpaid and under-appreciated in tenure/promotion decisions.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Unfortunately it can well happen that reviewers don't respond to the invitation to review (not sure whether that would still trigger the status to go to "under review", but depending on the system it may), or, worse, they agree to review and then don't do it. At a certain point in time an Associate Editor or Editor has to make their mind up what to do next. They could invite new reviewers but that incurs the chance that even more time is lost as there is no guarantee that the next person(s) who come to mind deliver a report. What happens at this point will probably depend on what their own (maybe superficial) impression of the paper is. If they were skeptical in the first place but wanted to give the paper a chance, they may at this point decide to cut everyone's losses and reject the paper even though it's of course not a satisfactory situation. Same may happen if they exhausted their list of potentially suitable reviewers without success and don't feel confident enough to accept the paper based on their own impression. Keep in mind even more time could be lost if they wait for longer!
In principle you could ask if there is a reviewer report that should have been passed on to you but wasn't. Mistakes like this can happen. However I would only do that if what the AE or Editor write implies that this is the case. If they don't refer to any report, chances are there is none.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/20
| 850
| 3,687
|
<issue_start>username_0: This question is about writing a paper in mathematics.
I am studying a *(partial differential)* equation and an algorithm to solve it approximately *(finite element method)*. I need to report in my work a theorem on the approximation error of this algorithm. Such theorem already exists in the paper X: it is proved in a context that is more general than mine for some reasons *(moving vs non-moving domain)*, and slightly less general than mine for other reasons *(homogeneous vs non-homogeneous boundary conditions)*.
>
> Should I report the adapted version of the proof from paper X, after of course appropriately citing it?
>
>
>
The modifications I had to do to the existing proof are mostly "trivial": my estimations are just longer and slightly more technically involved versions of those in X. In one point, however, I make a non-trivial (not so ingenious either) conceptual passage. I need a lot of context to report and prove this conceptual passage, so that rewriting the whole proof in my paper is not so much additional work, and it would be of course clearer.
Long story short, reporting the whole proof seems pedantic and may not be well received from the reviewers, whereas saying "The proof is as in [X]." feels lazy or not informative enough to me. But there may be more leftover space for reporting original content directly related to my publication!
Any hints?<issue_comment>username_1: Synthesizing a few answer comments as well as a suggestion of my own:
* Ask your adviser if you're a student. They're likely to have a better gut feeling on both the specific result and community expectations.
* If you're writing up, probably not the worst things in the world to write up the proof, finish drafting the paper, then consider whether your target journal or similar papers have explicit or implicit length guidelines. Then know you can remove the proof if the draft's too long.
* If the proof is essentially routine, a bit longish, but has a nontrivial element: Consider deferring it to an Appendix. This makes it extremely easy to cut if a reviewer doesn't think it's necessary.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Your concern about it being pedantic and not well received is unfounded. It is a healthy attitude that since their *result* does not cover the case you need, you consider it your (unfortunate) duty to give a proof. It may be pedantic, but pedantic in a good way, nobody should reproach you for it.
In my opinion, "the proof is as in X" should be considered an option only if the proof is *verbatim as in X*. Even then, it's better to acknowledge something like "the result in X formally does not apply to our case, but the proof transfers verbatim." If the proof is applies *mutatis mutandis*, write "the proof works verbatim once one replaces all derivatives with finite differences." In other words, it is an option to describe a proof in a "perturbative way" - by referring to an existing proof in the literature and describing what has to be changed. But at some point it may get awkward, and it becomes cleaner to give a self-contained exposition. It's your call as an author.
It's good, of course, if the role of the proof is properly explained: "We follow closely [1], with modification that may be obvious for an experienced reader. Nevertheless, because (reasons), we chose to include the proof." Relegating the proof to appendix, as suggested, is also a good way to signal your view of its originality.
If you submit to a journal with a page limit and have to cut out the proof, it would be a service to the community to keep a longer version publicly available on arXiv or your webpage.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/21
| 1,076
| 4,834
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an assistant professor at an R1 university. I am advising an undergraduate student whose major is mechanical engineering. He tried really hard but cannot figure out how to do a python code (~300 lines) for an entire semester. He came up with some code but it does not work. His research progress has just stopped there for several weeks.
What can I do to help him, debug the code for him? I don't think it is common to debug for a student (especially an undergraduate). Are there any other strategies that would be more appropriate?<issue_comment>username_1: Realistically, the student isn't going to get this done on their own at the end of the semester. I would take the time to review the code with the student, discuss any obvious errors that I can see, and work with the student to develop a plan to get the code working in stages.
From a software engineering point of view, 300 lines in one function is unmanageable, especially for a student who is new to programming. You should start by reviewing the design at a high level, and then refactor it into smaller functions (and if the student has the appropriate background, objects) A test-driven programming approach can be especially helpful with students who have limited experience in programming.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Code is not so different from any other assignment. What would you do if a student submitted a project report in which the final conclusions are wrong, presumably because of incorrect data, or incorrect interpretation of data? You could just write "wrong" on the assignment. But I bet you'd probably try to read through the report and figure out where the student went wrong -- primarily *because you want the student to learn* something, and just saying "wrong" is not conducive to this.
In other words, if your goal is to *teach* students skills that are useful to them, your job is to debug the code. I've often found it useful to do this side-by-side with the students so they can see how I approach doing this, what tools I use, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Not "for" but **with**.
Ideally of course, and assuming you can find the time.
I've supervised experimental projects in which a similar amount of Python is an important part. The students have encountered Python before, but mainly analysing/plotting data in a fairly limited context, while for my project hardware interfacing and flow control were more important. I provided the simplest possible readout function to avoid them getting stuck on a very steep bit of learning curve. The Python part of the project was clear up front.
Some students needed no help. Many of these had additional prior programming experience, but by no means all.
Most needed a little guidance - I could give them pointers and they could debug.
A tiny minority could have been considered lost causes, but that was because of failure to engage with the support they were offered.
The ones of interest here had the capability to debug their code, but had never done so. So they needed help to get from "My code doesn't work", through defining working/not working, examining error messages and output, checking execution flow and intermediate variables, and on to correcting the code.
As far as I was concerned, debugging *experiments*\* was a key learning outcome of the project; the code was part of that. And, here at least, the point of the project is that to go with more independence, they have more targetted support.
---
\* For example, a couple of times they got strange results caused by sunlight reflecting off another building, through a small gap, and into the photodiode they were using. It was only then that they understood my insistence on logging against wall-clock time, not calculated elapsed time (which tended to drift as they started with the implicit assumption that `time.sleep (30)` in a loop meant the loop executed once every 30 seconds)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: If your student cannot complete the assignment you gave him, then you gave him an assignment that does not match his level of knowledge and skills (an easy mistake to make, and one that I’ve probably made many times, sadly). The correct thing to do is to modify the assignment or replace it altogether with an assignment that the student can complete on his own. If you simply debug the assignment for him, that is a workable solution, but probably the student will end up learning very little from the project, other than getting the (very likely mistaken) impression that he is bad at programming and is not suited for technical work of any kind.
As for the code, if you need it as part of your larger research program, then finish it yourself or find another student to finish it who has the skills to do it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/21
| 1,667
| 7,054
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work in an NLP-adjacent area and while my advisor is pretty familiar with NLP in general, she isn't super familiar with the specific sub-domain I'm working in. While editing my paper, she strongly asks me to explicitly define some utterly obvious terms that would be extremely out of place in a typical paper for this venue (think having to define what "force" is in a physics paper).
I completely realize that there are times when even seemingly obvious terms can be ambiguous, but trust me when I say that this is NOT one of those cases.
When I point this out to her (even with evidence of other papers in the field), she gets super defensive and says something to the effect of "You are effectively saying that I don't know this field. Do you realize how problematic it is?" I wish she was at least open to the idea that NLP is such a fast-paced field that there might be something she doesn't know (and honestly, even reading one or two papers in my field will clear up things for her).
This may seem like a minor thing, but arguing about defining every small term that SHE doesn't understand makes me feel VERY frustrated, because I would either like constructive feedback on the ACTUAL IDEA OR I would at least like to be left alone in confidence that I know what I'm doing. Instead, I get nit-picked.
This was a bit of a rant, but any advice would help!<issue_comment>username_1: Communication is difficult. Jargon and acronyms can make the message difficult to understand. It is easy to assume the reader knows what do you mean, but it is the purpose of writing to communicate properly.
As an example, I was once compiling results from many papers on the same topic, but written by authors coming from different scientific communities. One of the key parameters of the study can be defined in 5 different ways. Each of these 5 ways is very logical, and convenient in various situations, but they are incompatible. Some papers didn't bother to mention which way was used, which rendered the results useless for me. Possibly those authors didn't think of the other 4 ways to define the parameter.
It is not uncommon for good papers to start by explaining context of the study before progressing to details. This demonstrates a good understanding of the topic, as well as helps the reader to follow.
>
> I wish she was at least open to the idea that (...) there might be something she doesn't know
>
>
>
Most scientists are well aware they don't know everything. This only supports the need for effective communication.
It is impossible for us to say what's going on in your papers, and between you and your advisor. However, if you are failing to explain to her what you are doing, it is not a good sign.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I don’t know anything about NLP, or what it even stands for, so this is more of a general point.
As a frame challenge, you should perhaps just for a moment consider that your supervisor knows better than you do about what’s an appropriate amount of detail to write in a paper. As a PhD student, you are at the beginning of your journey and there might be a lot of things that **you** don’t know and aren’t aware of. Being humble and listening to senior people is the best way to learn the unwritten rules of your field. You don’t need to bow down to authority, but you do need to have the maturity to when and who to argue with.
Take a moment to reflect on how she, as an experienced academic, might feel when a relatively inexperienced PhD student tells them that they know the right way to do things and she doesn’t. I think a lot of people would get defensive in such a situation.
My advice - just write the definitions. No harm can come from including them if they really are necessary and a lot of harm and ill feeling can come from acting like you know more than your supervisor does. Knowing which battles to fight is one of the most important skills you need to learn in academia.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> [W]hile my advisor is pretty familiar with NLP in general, she isn't
> super familiar with the specific sub-domain I'm working in.
>
>
>
Do you only want your paper to be comprehensible to experts in the specific subdomain (as opposed to e.g. your advisor) who are intimately familiar with the jargon of the field as of 2023 (as opposed to 2018, or 2028)? Then by all means omit the definitions. But this of course means that you are saying that your advisor (and by extension, other experts in NLP who are not experts in your specific subdomain) is not part of the intended audience of the paper and that it does not matter if she can understand the paper easily or not.
Now, if it's your paper, it's your choice. On the other hand, unless you run up against a page limit, there is no downside to putting in the effort to make your paper accessible to a broader audience. The more accessible a paper is, the more useful it is to the scientific community. Isn't that the goal? Your advisor is simply pushing you to make your paper more accessible to a larger number of people, which is certainly what you *should* want.
Note that it is, in fact, entirely possible that you do know more about a specific subdomain of NLP than your advisor does, but this is *very different* from knowing more about how to write a good paper than your advisor does. The latter skill in particular involves learning how to write papers that are easily digestible by the actual reader, rather than the imagined reader who is familiar with all the "utterly obvious" terms.
It is common for Ph.D. students who have only really focused on one specific topic and interacted with one specific scientific subcommunity to falsely imagine that the definitions and notions they are using are common knowledge. In reality, scientists even from the neighboring subdiscipline might not be familiar with what you consider to be the most basic results and definitions from your subdiscipline.
Finally (assuming that you are correctly relaying what your advisor said), trying to browbeat you by claiming that you are doing something "problematic" if you imply that there are things she does not know about your specific subdomain is, in my book at least, not great behavior. Of course, a certain amount of intellectual humility from the student is expected, but certainly there is nothing "problematic" (in the sense of "morally questionable" or "potentially offensive") in disagreeing with your supervisor's advice.
P.S.:
>
> and honestly, even reading one or two papers in my field will clear up things for her
>
>
>
Perhaps. Or perhaps the authors of those two papers decided to follow your logic too and did not bother to clarify their "utterly obvious" terminology either.
>
> I would either like constructive feedback on the ACTUAL IDEA
>
>
>
She is giving you feedback on how to best present that idea. That is part of her job as an advisor, and it is part of your job as a PhD student to learn how to present your ideas well.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/05/21
| 265
| 1,055
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my PhD thesis and went to work in a company where my PhD supervisor co-founded. I submitted part of my thesis work to a conference, and it got accepted. Now my supervisor asked me to affiliate the paper with the new institution. Is it alright if I do this? The thesis work was mostly done at the university, although under the supervision of the same person.<issue_comment>username_1: The simple way is to use dual affiliations.
```
Zero the Hero
Department of [then]
current address: [company now]
```
It makes it clear the work was done and supported by an institution different from the one you currently work at.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: [Answer by @username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196493/) is fine, but I don't think you need to be that explicit about the details, or at least it's not the norm. Having multiple affiliations is not a rare thing, and you can simply write both of the institutions in your affiliation(s) without any additional comments.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/21
| 1,873
| 8,082
|
<issue_start>username_0: The Setup
---------
I hold a prepared and written manuscript (10 500 words of text) focused on argumenting about specific problem in my field of study. This paper has been **rejected few times** from the most reputable journals and now I stand before the decision to finally send it to the last remaining one of the reputable journals I took inspiration from. However, as this was my first paper I think I might have **overreached** and **plugged almost everything I could in it** that I considered relevent for the argument. Now, I start to think that this might be the problem and the reason for rejection, because the paper feels rather like two papers that could be separated.
**The Problem**
---------------
I am pretty confident that the **first chapter** (2 500 words) of the paper **is its strongest point**, there is the core of the argument, while the remaining chapters are just supportive evidence and classification of the possible outcomes of the argument. However, there is one substantial **problem**: The argument on its own is not sufficient for publications as it should contain implications as well (cannot just say: *this definition is problematic for this and that reason; must include also, what to make of it*). My most profound implication of the argument I present is that it effectively simplifies another argument. *But...* **This implication is laid out in total of 3 chapters** on multiple separate positions (around 1 500 words in total) - in the original paper it makes sense as I focus on too many things that are interconnected.
**The Idea**
------------
And here's the thing... I could shorten the paper, use the first chapter, and rewrite the implication such that it is more compact. Or I could write a cover letter to editors explaining that I do not exactly know what should I let in the paper and propose the afformentioned reduction.
**Conclusion:**
* Is writing a cover letter to editors proposing the shortening of the paper a good custom?
* The reduced version of the paper would contain less information but would be more compact.
* Shall I send the reduced version right away and just tell there is potentially more to it?<issue_comment>username_1: You should submit the best version of your paper that you are capable of submitting. Whether the shorter or longer version is the best version is up to you to figure out.
It's fine to ask editors about flexibility in policies like word counts or figure counts, but it's not their responsibility to read your paper and help you determine its length, only to decide whether the paper you submit is a potential good fit for their journal.
If you want feedback on the length, I'd recommend asking people in your professional network rather than expecting editors to help.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Don't do it. If you submit a paper and promise to shorten it, why not shorten it right away? The editor won't bother sending a draft paper out for review and an improved version of the same paper shortly after. It would just waste everyone's time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: At least in mathematics (my field) it would be normal to say in a cover letter to an editor/journal that "the paper can be substantially shortened, if necessary, at the expense of omitting some of the proofs which follow standard arguments." The reason is that some of the strongest math journals really do not like publishing papers that are over 30 page-long (the longer the paper, the harder to publish) and some journals even have hard cut-offs on the length of a paper.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Direct response: submit the '*shortened*' manuscript and in the cover letter, indicate that *there's potentially more to it*. The trimmed down version should still be able to stand on it own.
>
> I focus on too many things that are interconnected.
>
>
>
[1] Consider mapping out diagrammatically the *interconnections*. From there, see which are the main interconnecting *pipes* and filtered out the draining pipes. Your manuscript might get more concise.
---
[Edit] @Henning input, which I fully agree and align to:
... *Don't include the diagram in your paper, but use it as an aid for revising it*. *It's a revising aid, a scaffolding. Do not include in the actual paper (at least not verbatim)*.
The purpose is to aid.
---
[2] Prepare for yourself a rebuttal based in previous rejections. With your earlier graphical view of your research argument and 'rebuttal', your manuscript should take shape more clearly (on key arguments).
[3] From there, get a four-eye-review from 'colleagues' in your discipline, amend accordingly and submit to the next (reputable) journal in line.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Sometimes I write very long papers -- and am faced with similar difficulties. A wonderful method that has helped me on several occasions is to equip papers with long appendices. This enables one to explain in the main text the key results, in a terse manner, and to expand on them in appendices.
On a couple of occasions, even this trick was insufficient, because the total size of a paper, with appendices, was excessively large. So in those two cases we agreed with the Editor that I would put the full version on ArXiV.org and cite it in a shorter version to be published in the journal. But then, again, this happened to me in two cases only. Usually, the trick with appendices works out well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Your situation sounds similar to mine: several rejections of a long-ish paper from top journals. A small number left to try before moving to lower tier.
This "answer" will use that as a guide to give you advice.
I have several relevant posts here about it. In my situation, it is a blessing because I found better arguments and now legitimately have more than one paper.
The comments and answers to my questions are probably relevant here: have capable and trusted readers give you honest and thorough feedback. That will help you decide what to leave out if anything (and generally how to improve the presentation).
Follow the standards of the discipline and the journal you wish to submit to. This includes the writing style and paper format. If it is typical for things to be left out, then do that. I do find that top journal papers often day things like "it is easy to see X" and I personally don't like that, but if that is the cultural standard, it is what it is and might be advised to follow it. But there is no guarantee that yours is treated exactly the same as other papers. You say this is your first paper, and that means there is an additional challenge due to lack of experience. My situation is similar--although I am mid career and have several papers, this is my first truly top-journal worthy result. The challenge is purely about presentation/style. I suspect that is a big factor here. "Style" could also be construed to include things like leaving out standard or simple arguments or the specific way/order things are owned in (the flow of the arguments). That will depend on discipline/journal to a degree too.
Much of this comes down to editor and referee subjective preference too. There is luck involved as well -so I have been told at least.
I was unable to get any thorough/careful qualified readers for my paper (the main thing people suggested I needed), but the extremely limited amount of feedback I got was IMMENSELY helpful (from real, even somewhat "famous" experts). That plus deep introspection, hard work, and much rewriting will vastly improve my paper. Plus presenting the work to an audience helped. Even if I still can't get it at a top journal, the paper will be accepted somewhere. It's for the love of the knowledge and sharing it that matters, even if it's not immediately (or ever) honored by those at the top.
I hope that is helpful and doesn't just come across me wanting to talk about myself. I truly get the situations were similar and that these comments might be helpful.
Best of luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/21
| 1,256
| 5,647
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is a trend that I have noticed more and more over the years as a reviewer for a number of journals: a group of authors from country X submits a manuscript, where the vast majority (if not all) of the cited works are recent papers from other authors of the same country X. Remarkable cases that I have personally seen include a manuscript with 30+ references, all of research work entirely developed within a single country.
If the authors introduce a disproportionate number of *self*-citations, I think it is fair to raise the issue in my review. But what should I do, as a frequent reviewer, when I notice this "citational nationalism"? Should I point it out, or just let it slide?
I am not entirely comfortable with this practice, as it can be used as a way to boost citations while avoiding rejections: research groups on the same topic, all within the same country, generally tend to know each other well, so they can reach (possibly tacitly) a *"I cite you, you cite me"* kind of deal. At the very least, it makes me think that the authors did not perform a thorough and fair bibliographic review.
To be clear, I admit this could be justified in some fields. For instance, it seems reasonable to me that many of the scholars studying the history and culture of X work in X-based academic institutions; also, some "big science" projects are only developed at a handful of places worldwide. However, I am in a STEM field where the research is routinely carried out by groups all around the world and does not require any particularly hard-to-access tools.
How should I proceed in these cases?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that this should be based on your knowledge of the literature. It is possible that this is justified because related research may indeed be mainly or exclusively based in the country in question. I'm sure that there are examples for this even in STEM. It may also be the case that authors are slightly but unconsciously biased, i.e., that indeed a lot is going on in the country in question but that, given the actual situation, they cite their own country too much and should cite some specific papers from elsewhere that they currently ignore. These situations are rather benign and because they are possible, I don't think that this should always be raised as an issue.
For sure, if you know work from elsewhere that you think should be cited, by all means mention it. Even if it's quite a bit. Also, you can challenge some references based on lack of relevance. All this can be done in principle without explicitly suspecting that there is a systematic bias in favour of their home country. One reasonable thing you can do if you suspect an issue but your own literature overview is limited is to specifically look around for related papers from abroad. I also occasionally look into cited papers if I suspect that they don't contribute anything of importance in order to say that they should not be cited. With these actions you work toward improving the situation without any accusation of the authors or getting into problematic discussions.
Even going further and mentioning the issue explicitly is in my view rather harmless. I don't think using a sentence of the kind "24 of 26 references are from Iceland, and there is for sure more relevant research on this outside Iceland (example)" is problematic, at least if the situation is extreme enough. Maybe even with additional extra hint to the editor in the Comments to Editor. I can well imagine doing this (and I have done so in the past, even though if I remember correctly only in cases in which I knew that authors and cited people would have some personal connection) if the bias becomes all too obvious, but I should always be able to give at least examples of what to cite, and if I don't want to see certain references that are there, I would need to know them well enough to argue explicitly that they shouldn't (unless the issue is that they are cited for some methodology that is in fact older, in which case I can just say "cite the original" from a different country).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I believe you should NOT approach the problem like "cite people outside country C". If you are aware of papers they should have cited or not cited, you might make their omission or inclusion a bigger deal than you would for a paper with "diverse" citations. But don't approach the problem as "diversity at any cost" - in the end you want the most appropriate citations, no matter which countries/institutions the authors come from.
What I did is recommend to cite those other highly influential works that are very relevant to their problem. Not in a way of "cite someone else besides local researchers" but simply "inadequate literature review, papers X, Y, Z, W, ... are all highly relevant and in some cases overlap with this paper". You might even go a step further and suggest removing references, eg: "paper X is highly relevant to the work in question and should be cited in place of paper Y, which is only tangentially related", but I haven't done that.
Similar to the problem is also an inverse side of it - where (it seems) some very relevant papers were omitted because they came from "undesirable" country. This is a bit less glaring because purposefully omitting one country or two doesn't stand out quite as much as including just papers of one country does. But it is ultimately a similar problem - papers are cited or not cited for scientifically irrelevant reasons, so I believe it makes the most sense to also recommend citing of those omitted papers.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/05/22
| 1,200
| 5,405
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a first year PhD student. I have no issues regarding academics and relationships with faculty. Unfortunately, there is a fellow student in the department who is making my life very difficult. The student regularly hounds me and the other students for various forms of help and gets aggressive when such help is not provided. The student also harasses us with constant phone calls and sometimes even stalks us. Despite persistent complaints to the department, they seem to be dragging their feet with the issue. Essentially the department considers this a non-academic issue and therefore expects us to sort it out ourselves. So this student will probably be around in the department for the foreseeable future.
As a result, I am considering transferring to a different PhD program at another university. This is still my first year and I haven't committed to an advisor yet. I am wondering how frank I should be in my transfer applications. After all, if I understand correctly, transferring PhD programs is generally looked down upon right? Would this situation have enough weight in the eyes of the application reviewers to justify a transfer?<issue_comment>username_1: "Transfers" of PhD students aren't really a thing (at least not in the US), with some rare exceptions like students following an advisor who has taken a job at another institution, where they may negotiate bringing their students along (if those students wish to).
So, that means you're basically applying again from scratch for PhD programs. They're going to evaluate your application along with all the other new applicants. Admissions decisions aren't made to make the world fair or compensate you for troubles you experienced somewhere else. Instead, programs you apply to want to know that you'll be successful in their program and are more worth their efforts at training than any of the other applicants that they'll have to deny.
You'll probably need to explain your move, and probably this story is sufficient, though it doesn't make your application appear *better* in any way. If nothing else, they might unfairly count it against you because they may be suspicious (consciously or not) that you somehow contributed to the problem or have trouble dealing with others. In any case, focus your application on yourself as a student the same way you would have in your initial applications.
Ultimately, though, if that's what you need to do for your wellbeing and safety, it doesn't matter much: you just have to do it and try to find the best alternative program. In the meantime, I think there are probably escalations still available to you where you are if you feel safe for now. I would look to resources available for student mental health, an ombuds office, or other university resources besides the ones you've tried. I think it's worth making clear that this harassment is sufficient to make you consider leaving the program. Document behavior that occurs as soon as possible after each incident in a way that preserves evidence, like sending yourself an email; try to be specific and factual like dates and times of phone calls, note occasions when you have stated you do not want to be contacted.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To add to the excellent answer by <NAME>, which mostly deals with the issue of transferring. I want to address the issue of the harassment.
"Harassment" is a loaded word that brings strong emotions and reactions. Look up your institution's policy and guidelines on harassment. They will be helpful in figuring out if what you are going through is harassment and not just annoying behavior from the other student. As a professor, I am usually the first person students contact when they feel they have been harassed. The behavior reported ranges from the clearly illegal to a student not knowing how to handle an annoying classmate. Thus, our response has to depend on the specifics. At one extreme, we call the police, help the student file a restraining order and get things in motion to ban the perp from campus. On the other end, some students use loaded keywords such as "harassment", "bullying", etc. to describe what is, by all observers, the normal interactions of people ironing out the kinks of group work.
If you were in my office with the question you posted here, I'd ask:
1. Have you told them to stop?
2. Detail the stalking behavior.
3. Are you afraid for your physical safety, or just annoyed?
4. Can you block their phone number?
5. If there are other victims, are you willing to get together and write a statement of facts?
6. Do you have evidence of the behavior? Examples include multiple phone calls the same day, threatening messages, witnesses of the stalking behavior, etc.
Please note that I'm not asking you to post the answers to these questions here. This is just to explain the facts other people need to hear to make a fair assessment of the situation.
If the chair of the department is not responding, again, check the harassment policy of the university. All of the ones which I have read include the contact information of a person responsible for listening to harassment complaints, and they are almost always a person not in the chain of command from your advisor or department chair, for example, a person at the university president's office, a university lawyer, etc.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/22
| 2,885
| 12,440
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is a question that I originally posted to matheducators.stackexchange.com but it was suggested that I might get some more answers here.
My department is considering using more than one lecturer (sequentially, not in parallel) to give lectures in our large first-year classes (e.g. 500 students doing engineering mathematics).
In other words, one lecturer does the first 4 weeks, a second does the next 4 weeks and a third does the remaining 4 weeks.
There is enough content of disparate nature (e.g., linear algebra, calculus of various types) to split into three distinct blocks so that each lecturer teaches a coherent block.
Is there evidence, ideally published research studies, about the effectiveness of such an arrangement, and whether the students view it favourably or otherwise.
My inability to locate for myself any research studies may be due to the large number of different meanings of the phrase "team teaching" or "joint teaching" or "co-teaching". Just to clarify, I am **not** talking about dividing a large class into sections, nor am I talking about two lecturers in the same class. Just the material being divided up and presented in separate blocks by different lecturers.
Given this inability to locate research studies, I am also interested in anecdotal evidence if you have any horror stories or great successes to comment on.
(My suspicion is that the precise details of who the lecturers are, and whether they are good lecturers etc is more important than the distinction between "one lecturer" and "two lecturers", but I'd like to have some evidence one way or another.)
**Added in response**
Thanks for all the useful responses, which lead me to believe that we can proceed with caution. In what follows, a "unit" is a 12-week class that occupies 1/4 of a student's time, what other countries call a "class" or a "course" or even a "paper" (in NZ).
In our situation, the unit's content is defined by a unit reader that was collectively written when the unit was first designed, and each lecturer would need to cover a specified set of chapters / sections from the reader.
While the contents of each *lecture* is not specified down to the last page, we know from previous years approximately how much can be covered in each lecture. So different lecturers cannot really deviate much from this if they are to complete the same material in the same time.
The final exam will be written, again with many years of past examples at hand, by the unit coordinator, and marked (mostly) by casual teaching assistants, to a fairly rigid rubric. So the lecturers will not really affect that.<issue_comment>username_1: I can't point to any research but given that you ask for anecdata:
This approach is fairly common in the UK and related systems. A module (class) may be a single entity for administrative purposes, but in practical terms it may be split into several pieces taught by different people. I have even seen modules where *every single lecture* is given by a different person.
In general this approach works well. There needs to be one person who has oversight of everything, and who can act as a defined point of contact for student queries that don't fit elsewhere. In the UK this person would likely be known as the 'module convenor'.
The teaching team need to make sure they are all very clear about exactly what is to be covered by each person. If there are any ambiguities about nomenclature, notation, etc, the team should agree their approach. This is probably the biggest source of legitimate student complaints - inconsistencies, holes or duplication between different lecturers. You also need to consider how you're going to handle disruption to your schedule: what happens if - for whatever reason - someone isn't able to cover all their material in their allotted time? Is this going to cause a cascading series of problems for subsequent teaching?
The second issue that can exercise students is assessment: make sure that multiple lecturers does not equate to a (perception of a) greater assessment burden for the students. Note that some students may attempt to play one lecturer off against another ("Oh, but Prof. X told me that I didn't need to do this exam!"). To avoid this, it may be desirable for all 'significant' administrative matters (extensions, dispensations, notification of examination arrangements, etc) to be handled by the module convenor.
A final consideration is the need for synthesis. This will vary between topics, but chopping a class into pieces risks losing sight of the bigger picture - how do they all fit together? Where are the important similarities and differences? Lecturers may require encouragement to think of their segment within the broader context of the class, and not as a stand-alone entity. In some cases it may be appropriate to have one or more lectures at the end of the course that try to draw together all the different threads developed elsewhere.
**Edited to add:** One significant potential pedagogic benefit of using multiple lecturers is that it can help signpost - and enforce - the division of a topic into distinct logical units. A change of personnel sends a clear visual message that one chapter has finished and a new one has begun. It may also encourage weaker or struggling students to attempt to re-engage: psychologically, at least, it offers an opportunity for a 'fresh start'.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: No problem - at least with 2 lecturers on the same course unit.
It's common enough in engineering for some time. And it can happen across courses that run for 1 semester or across two with a single exam.
Often the main lecturer will teach in the part that is his field of research while the other will do likewise with the other topic on the course.
The main problem is the obvious one - the quality of teaching.
So where one lecturer X is sloppy, students will be saying that Y should have carried the whole course, at least he can put stuff across, etc, etc.
The latter situation can often occur when the second "lecturer" is a postdoc fellow and is being given a chance of getting some teaching practice in an area familiar to them through their research. Often they just don't get (or want to do the donkey-work involved in ?) the task of bringing students rationally and sensibly from point A (that they are already at) to point B (where the course is supposed to take them).
But this situation should not be problematic if the individual lecturing is adequate.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I had a similarish experience in my past, and I found it that from POV of student, the main point is that all the courses play into each otehr. For example, if you are talking about the Jacobian in Calculus, but haven't covered all the operations one can do with Matrices in the Linear algebra class, then it would be quite awkward.
If the lecture courses play into each other they can be quite good. But, at the same time, there is a chance of overloading the student if they play into each otehr too well, since one would need to do good in one course to do well in others. For this, one remedy would be to give reviews of topics, eg, a topic done in a linear algebra course could repeated back in the calculus course.
Tl;dr: Check for curriculum clash, make sure each course can is complete in some sense, and so on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Something like this can be highly beneficial for some subjects, but probably neutral or even negative for others. The negative part comes from students needing to adjust to a new lecturer and their teaching / grading style. For some this might not be a problem, for others it can be highly distracting and disruptive to their learning.
Where you can get a lot of benefit is in the social sciences in classes that highly benefit from disparate perspectives. For example, I took a course on Judaism where there was a constant stream of guest lecturers. It worked really well because you got to see interpretations on the subject from highly religious Jews, atheist Jews, Jews highly critical of Israel, ones that were big supporters, etc.
For lower level math courses like LA and calc I would much rather just have one good professor, even if it wasn't their specialty, than to have to adjust to new ones. I would only prefer having a new one come in if the new lecturer was much better at teaching. But the reverse is the worse case scenario. If the new lecturer was much worse than the previous it would be incredibly irritating.
Relatedly to the last point, there's also the issue of dropping. At the start of the course you have the option (at most places for these level of classes) to drop the course or switch sections if you have reason to think the professor isn't going to work for you (hard to understand, etc). But you would have no such option if there's a new one in the middle of the semester.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't have research to point to, but I think we need to make a distinction between introductory topics and specialised topics.
For specialised topics, dividing the lectures can be very much in the interest of the student. During my Master course, we had classes where almost every lecture was given by a guest lecturer who was a world-class researcher and teacher in the speciality. The official course-responsible lecturer would introduce the different lecturers, take care of the exams, and of course make sure that there was a clear thread throughout the lecture series making up the class. It worked great.
For introductory topics, it would seem the division might be there not to benefit the students, but to benefit the teachers (less teaching load). In the best case, benefiting the teachers indirectly benefits the students. But there is a risk that this approach is not beneficial to the students. Maybe we can split up the lectures OK — but someone should take the lead to take overall course responsibility for synthesis, examination, etc. Otherwise one might be better up teaching the class as multiple classes, so students can expect differences.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I experienced this in my first year physics lecture ("Physics for Engineers"). It didn't feel weird, professor A would present topic X (mechanics, IIRC), then professor B would take over for topic Y (probably optics).
It didn't feel any different to professor A doing the lecture "XYZ 1" one semester, then professor B doing the lecture "XYZ 2" the next semester.
Liking or disliking is usually up to the individual professors and students. A student who doesn't like the way professor A teaches will probably welcome the switch of lecturers halfway through the class, while another student, who likes his style of teaching, will probably be disappointed. E.g. with the physics lecture I mentioned, I would have loved to keep professor A for the rest of the lecture, as he was using the blackboard and the lecture notes were less text and more figures. With professor B, we had lots of text (and formulas) and less figures. The latter was much harder to revise before the exams.
And, as most others have already mentioned, make sure that in exams etc., all parts have the same or at least similar complexity. It's annoying to have different classes with different requirements, but within the same class, it's a big no-no.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I had my second course on General Relativity taught jointly by two professors and I absolutely hated it. One of the lecturers used handwritten notes and the other provided a pdf with infinite typos in it. It is a frustration not having a complete set of lecture notes taught continuously from start to finish.
That being said, student experience of a joint course/module depends only on who teaches it and not on mode of teaching, provided both lecturers are willing to put efforts into communitaing with one another so the course runs smoothly during transition. As you said the course under consideration is a large first-year class, I would imagine it is of no difference whether it is taught by a single lecturer or 2 to 3 jointly.
This brings me to the second point: my GR course was a small one, and having two lecturers literally mean they get to know you less. But this really is not on the student experience side of things but on recommendation letter issues.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/22
| 1,019
| 4,594
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m currently required to make a questionnaire for my research. Is it okay to use only specific questions from previously published questionnaires as these questions perfectly apply to my research context? Will that be considered a plagiarism if I cited these questions?<issue_comment>username_1: Plagiarism is not copying. Plagiarism is copying without attribution. By definition, you can not commit plagiarism if you cite the original source and make sure the reader understands well that which parts are others, and not yours.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't see this as plagiarism. Plagiarism is passing something off as your own words (or thoughts perhaps) without attribution. If you publish an article under your name as author which contains unattributed text copied from elsewhere, that is plagiarism. But here you are using a questionnaire as a tool to collect information. You are not claiming you wrote those questions nor would it be reasonable for someone to assume that. In fact, it would be unexpected and bizarre to cite sources for the questions in a questionnaire. Things could be different if you make other use of the questionnaire. For example, if you publish it as an appendix to an article you probably should include some attribution to sources.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **"Is it okay to use only specific questions from previously published questionnaires as these questions perfectly apply to my research context?"**
*Ans*: Using specific questions from previously published questionnaires may be acceptable if they are relevant and appropriate for your research context and objectives. However, you should not rely solely on existing questions (to cherrypick) as they may limit the scope and depth of your inquiry. Instead, you should design your own questionnaire based on a thorough literature review and a clear research gap. This will ensure that your questionnaire is novel, robust, and tailored to your specific case.
**Will that be considered a plagiarism if I cited these questions?**
*Ans*: Questions should only be cited if they are relevant to the same context. In research questions, context is crucial. Different fields of research may pose similar or identical questions but with different meanings and implications. For instance: “Did the proposed model improve the performance?” This question could appear in both an Economics paper and a Software Engineering paper. However, these papers should not cite each other’s questions, as it is too common of a question and belongs to different contexts.
If the context is partially overlapping, it is advisable to address this issue of question repetition in the Related Works section, where the differences in context for the same questions can be further discussed and clarified.
An example can illustrate this point: suppose I am proposing model **X** in my paper **P** for a certain task. The current state-of-the-art (SOTA) approach, model **Y**, was proposed in the paper **P’** for the same task. I want to include the following question in the questionnaire for the user study of my paper: *“On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 being completely disagreed and 10 being completely agreed), do you think the proposed model performs better with respect to the SOTA approach?”*. I have already explained the ‘proposed model’ and ‘SOTA approach’ (model **Y**) to the user group. However, when I examine paper **P’**, I find the exact same question (verbatim) used by the authors of **P’** to validate the superiority of their model **Y**. I need to use the same question for my model **X** to demonstrate its superiority over model **Y**. Therefore, I acknowledge this issue in the *Related Section*, where I cite paper **P’** and explain that I have followed their work and asked similar questions in my user study for the same purpose.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: First, you need to understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. If you cite your source, it's not plagiarism, but if you copy the questionaire without permission, then it is copyright infringement.
Second, the questions in a questionaire are rarely random. Very often a questionaire contains questions where the interviewer has no interest in the answer whatsoever, but these questions are added so the interviewee cannot figure out what the interviewer wants and cannot give the answers that they think the interviewer wants to hear. So if you remove these "pointless" questions, then the answers to the other questions can and will change.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/22
| 1,869
| 7,891
|
<issue_start>username_0: From browsing through many threads on Reddit and discussing with people offsite, I find that the general impression is that most German universities are equally good; for example [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/xa10b5/are_all_german_universities_both_public_and/).
How did they become equally good? As far as I understand, there is a high degree of self governance for the German state governments to choose the policy in regards to their universities, so I'd imagine a higher variance in quality by state.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know a lot about the US system but I guess a lot of the top unis there are heavily funded by private citizens and companies. I guess the salaries of professors is also not uniform. I am also guessing that "good" unis get grants more easily, can afford more high-end state of the art labs and equipment that help them to produce more cutting edge research, which in turn makes them even more attractive and their "betterness" is structurally perpetuated.
In Germany, on the other hand, (public) university education is paid for by the state and the amount of money that the universities get is roughly the same for similar amounts of students. The salaries of professors are regulated by the German government as well - every professor at the same level gets more or less the same money. So there is not much reason to have a "brain drain" of the best professors to specific universities - the benefits are not as big. Of course, some unis are more attractive / have a bit more prestige (like e.g. Heidelberg or Tübingen due to being very old institutions, or unis in bigger cities like Hamburg or Berlin due to the added value of being able to live in a great city).
Also, if not many students enroll in your programs because the quality of learning is bad, you might get less funds as a university, which is an incentive to keep the quality of education as high as possible.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There a few factors here:
1. There are different reputation-quality-feedback loops in play. To oversimplify slightly: In the US, people believe that universities have signficant quality differences. Thus, good students and academics go to highly ranked universities. This leads to highly-ranked universities to actually be signficantly better, which feeds the belief that this is the case. In Germany, people don't perceive significant differences, so they don't care about ratings. Subsequently, good students and academics are more evenly distributed amongst universities, and quality differences are small.
2. German universities have limited means to attract/select the best people. Salaries are determined by the state, as are the required teaching hours. Admission requirements can't be overly strict by law either. This again leads to a more even distribution of who goes where in terms of talent.
3. Germany has a culture of proper job qualifications other than university degrees, and thus far fewer people go to university. It seems about 1/3 of German school leavers go to university, while it's 2/3 in the US. As such, German universities are all comparable only with the more selective US institutions as far as incoming student quality is concerned.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Asking for whether a German university is better than another makes roughly as much sense whether craftspeople in one city are better than in another: Sure, some businesses are better than others, one city will have the very best craftsperson, and maybe one of the cities has a vibrant plumbing community leading to a significantly better quality of plumbing in that city. However, at the end of the day, this will have little effect on the average quality of a services or help you select a particular service: If you need your violin repaired, it doesn’t help you that the world’s best hair stylist lives next door.
Similarly, the idea that a university is generally better than another is – prima facie – absurd:
If a university has one of the world’s leading historians or is best at teaching biology to its students, this tells you very little of the quality of teaching or research at its math department.
You may have a strong correlation of quality within an institute, a modest one within a department, but this becomes negligible once you go to the faculty or university level.
The main thing that connects different faculties within a university are its central services (administration, cantina, etc.), but these barely affect teaching and research quality.
Thus I think the question rather is: Why do other countries have such high difference in university quality? I think the main reasons are:
* Reputation feedback loop: A good reputation attracts better students and personnel, which in turn leads to better teaching and research, which leads to a better reputation. More on this in [this answer of mine](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154714/7734).
* Financial feedback loop: More money allows you to hire better researchers and teachers, have a higher teacher-to-student ratio, and perform more expensive research, which in turn allows you to acquire more money from student fees, sponsors, and grants.
* Historical bias: For example, in the US most (if not all) top universities are rather old or were funded with insane amounts of money (see the previous point). Young universities usually have bad chances of acquiring a reputation etc.
As German universities are state-funded, the financial loop is mostly absent. Also, this limits the reputation loop: Why should the state fund more room or personnel at one university when there is unused space and personnel elsewhere? As for the historical aspect, Germany had many universities before it became feasible for most students and personnel to select a university solely based on quality aspects as opposed to geographical ones. Those were of comparable quality for the same reason outlined in the initial example with craftspeople.
>
> As far as I understand, there is a high degree of self governance for the German state governments to choose the policy in regards to their universities, so I'd imagine a higher variance in quality by state.
>
>
>
Kind of. On the one hand things such as finances are largely homogenised, so they don’t factor into this. On the other hand, for other aspects so much freedom is left to the individual faculties, and departments that the effects smear out at the university level. For example most physics departments in Germany adhere to rather similar standards of teaching, but this is completely different from how any law department operates.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it makes sense to think of this question differently: why do US universities have such differences in reputation?
1. Comparing apples to apples, German universities do have big differences in reputation. The institutions in the US that primarily play the role of Universitäten and those that primarily play the role of Fachhochschulen are both called universities. Universitäten and Fachhochschulen definitely do NOT have the same reputation in Germany.
2. The US systems are designed with differences in reputation built in. By law, the various campuses of the University of California accept the top 12% of California high school students. The remaining California students are simply not allowed to go to one of the University of California campuses; they go to one of the California State University campuses. (Note all these campuses pretty much operate as independent universities, and, in practice, UCB and UCLA have students in the top 4% and the other 9 UC campuses have students in the 5-12% range.)
(Think about this question in the French context too - it's obvious why ENS has a much higher reputation than the ordinary French universities.)
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/22
| 1,283
| 5,599
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a rather convoluted employment situation. I am a Postdoc in U.K. but I signed a contract for a teaching intensive U.S. university with start date next January, at the end of my current post-doc. However, I have been recently informed that a fellowship my current PI applied for got funded and she wishes to nominate me as post-doc for this position as well. If I simply take the US job, I can forget about doing any research and job progression back into research. At the same time, this is a very well-paid permanent position which I am taking as a solid back-up plan if no better permanent job comes out. The funding my PI secured would generate a 1-year postdoc. On the other hand, it is a 100% research position.
A natural route to juggle the problem would be to ask for a part-time appointment in both positions and let the second post-doc naturally exhaust in two years. However, I am aware the institution offering the permanent position is not willing to offer a part-time.
Hence, I am now considering creating a personal company, and ask my PI to pay my research time through the company. I am aware many academics use private companies as a vehicle for easing funding routes, but I am unsure whether the above can be realized at all.
Any lead strongy appreciated!<issue_comment>username_1: It appears from the question that you would like to work two jobs, either both part time or one full time and one part time, but one employer is not willing to contract with you under those terms.
It's rather clear there is no administrative structuring of this situation, e.g. via incorporating entities or new bank accounts, that will resolve the issue that one of your potential employers is unwilling to contract your labor under the changed terms you've offered.
>
> A natural route to juggle the problem would be to ask for a part-time appointment in both positions and let the second post-doc naturally exhaust in two years.
>
>
>
I haven't ever heard of such an arrangement in the US. What's more common and culturally accepted is for you to request a deferral of start date for the permanent position so that you can complete this extra year of postdoc. You'll need to convince the employers for that position that it's worth the mild risk and inconvenience waiting.
>
> If I simply take the US job, I can forget about doing any research and job progression back into research. At the same time, this is a very well-paid permanent position which I am taking as a solid back-up plan if no better permanent job comes out.
>
>
>
It's understandable if you make whatever career decisions for yourself you think are best, but based on the tone of your question I feel compelled to point out that the following. You've suggested interest in several decisions that I'd usually expect to impact your professional reputation rather negatively and severely. Backing out of a firm and signed contract for a permanent position often screws the hiring department, and they will not remember it kindly. Negotiating the terms of your contract after you've already signed like you're interested in doing isn't impossible, but you should treat it very delicately.
Your question gives me, at least, the impression that you're willing to run off for the next decent job that you can come across, and perhaps underestimate the responsibilities a department anticipates someone to cover if they take a permanent position. Probably best to avoid that if it's not your intent.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Being a very productive researcher at a teaching school can be possible and very rewarding. Is research required? If so, you can simply go above and beyond requirements there. You may still be able to have some funding from your current group.
Whatever you do, be open and honest. If it is legal and acceptable to do this, say by forming a fictional legal entity, then fine, but that does sound sketch to me. The important thing is that both employers are fully and honestly informed and agree. I don't know anything about working two paying jobs simultaneously, sorry.
I do have insight of being a researcher at a teaching school. My experience is that even with a tenure track position with a very minimal research requirement, high quality productive research will garner you much more recognition than, say, the same level of effort in administrative duties or teaching. All of that is important of course, but there is a certain natural prestige associated with scholarship/research, even better if you involve students in it. Of course others may have different experience that contrasts with mine. I hope this is helpful.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Fellowships generally go to people, not companies. If your PI were to hire a company to carry out work under a grant, that would be a very different spending category from the point of view of your finance department. It might involve a subcontract or consortium arrangement. You have no way of knowing whether the money set aside for a fellowship can be used this way without asking your PI (who probably would need to ask the pencil pushers and the school and maybe even the funding institution for a real answer)
The company that hired you did so in a full time role. You have no idea whether they'd be interested in hiring you in a part time role. Given that, your plan certainly doesn't feel like a "natural route", and I don't understand how setting up a company alleviates any of the real issues you'd be facing for accepting both jobs in a half time capacity.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/22
| 800
| 2,985
|
<issue_start>username_0: Which other Language tests/certificates are recognized other than IELTS and TOEFL, especially if one wants to study a Masters in European countries like Italy ?
IELTS and TOEFL may not be affordable for many people from poor countries.
I heard from a friend that a test Duolingo is also recognized by many universities in world.<issue_comment>username_1: Unlike Duolingo, the Pearson Test of English (PTE) seems to have gained traction. However, this is not standard.
---
Most universities would list alternatives to test/proof of English they accept. Check on each universities or school or course page.
* For instance, University of Leicester has its [list of Equivalent qualifications and tests](https://le.ac.uk/study/international-students/english-language-requirements/equivalent).
* Queen's Mary University of London has [Alternative English Language Qualifications](https://www.qmul.ac.uk/international-students/englishlanguagerequirements/alternative-qualifications/) which varies from UG to PG.
* Similarly, University of Padua, Italy [list Language requirement for admission to its degree programmes](https://www.unipd.it/en/language-requirement-admission-degree-programmes)
In Italy, the university can use its discretion in issuing the LoA (letter of acceptance) which is required for visa purposes.
*By the way, you may need more of Italian than English. The following, among others, might become relevant: [DITALS, CELI, CILS, DELI, DILI, DALU, PLIDA, CEDILS ...](https://www.europassitalian.com/learn/certification-cils/)*
Note that IELTS itself has a [list of 'alternatives': Comparing IELTS to other tests](https://www.ielts.org/for-organisations/comparing-ielts-to-other-tests)
If you don't want to write an English test, you may consider 'evaluating' your English proficiency based on your previous UG degree. ECCTIS (formerly NARIC) offers the [Visas and Nationality services for this](https://www.ecctis.com/visasandnationality).
Just to add for completeness, the various test bodies test/evaluate against the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
---
Duolingo was well received during the COVID period. Whether it's still regarded, I do not know.
For the category of persons in questions, seeking university admissions *overseas*, in my view, IELTS and TOEFL, I don't think they are not affordable. Pegging validity at 2 yrs might be the concern. Perhaps, making the results valid for at least 5 yrs.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: For what concerns Italy, each university has its own requirements, which are usually described in the university website and may also change from year to year.
For instance, the requirements for my university are listed in [this page](https://didattica.polito.it/inte/en/apply_msc_lang), showing the accepted certificates.
You may look at other universities, but I'd be rather surprised to find a university accepting Duolingo, at least in Italy.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/22
| 8,417
| 36,181
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in an American university, on year 4 of a 5-6 year program. Recently (three months ago), my advisor told me to leave the program since he doesn't think this subject is for me (he said this statement exactly). He doesn't think I have it in me to get a PhD because I haven't made enough progress yet. This completely broke me from inside. They gave me some time to come up with an alternate career option along with a deadline to reach up to a certain point in our research.
I see where my advisor is coming from. I am still learning how research works. My work involves a lot of code, and this is not my strong point; it took a while to come up to speed. Communication is difficult since my advisor is mostly online. On the other hand, I did very well in my classes and quals, and I do well in conferences and such. I had asked my advisor for feedback many times, and they told me everything was fine until now.
I actually managed to meet the deadline, and things have improved externally. We never did discuss alternate career ideas. The advisor now acts like everything is fine. But for me its like pulling a bullet through me and then acting as if I everything is great! I can take criticism but this broke me so much that I constantly feel like crying. I can't talk to anyone. I am scared that if I talk to professors, they will think I am just stupid and really lack what it takes to do PhD.
How do I cope with this emotionally? I do still want a PhD. Finding a new supervisor at this late point would be very difficult due to funding and visa issues.
Clarifications from comments:
* My advisor is not a bad person. In fact, he is considered one of the nicest people ever. So I fear if I open up to someone, either I will get ridiculed or will burn bridges for future.
* Their attitude changed abruptly when one of my seniors was taking very long to complete a thesis (~2 yrs), that is when I think it hit them that it is taking too long. That is when his behavior changed towards me too.
* I am an Indian female, the advisor is American male<issue_comment>username_1: I recommend that any graduate students facing discouragement and fraught advisor relationships make an appointment with the student counseling center. I would especially recommend this route for you because you state in a comment that “Now I am workwise doing fine but internally I am very broken.”
The counselors there are very familiar with the issues students face when dealing with advisors. The counselors can help to coach you through this, in particular helping you to work on not getting stuck in a negative thought pattern and keeping good relations through productive conversations.
More than half of the students in my high-pressure graduate program used these programs and we all found it very useful. They were free/covered by our student health insurance fully.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I recommend talking with other professors in your program. It may seem like you're stuck with your current advisor and that's your only possible funding source, and you have no other option, but that's not true. Plenty of student-advisor relationships sour over time (you're not going to remain friends with everyone you meet), and students can change advisors. Graduate programs would rather move money around than lose graduate students. I've seen it happen in my own program.
I would review the research areas of the other professors in your program, set up meetings with them to talk about your research, find common ground, and see which professor feels right. When applying to graduate school you just pick a professor to work under and hope it's a right choice. Sometimes it isn't, but that's not the only professor in your program doing interesting research!
Rephrase your situation and realize the opportunity you have. Now you get to have deep research conversations with all of the other professors in your program and really get to know the other professors and see who you really click with. When applying for grad school you only really get a 30 min interview with the two professors they think match your interests. Now you can talk with them all!
In addition to meeting with the other professors in your department, I'd chat with the dean of your department. They want you there, doing research, and if there's a better fit with another advisor that will help you do research better, they can help find the funding for it.
Grad programs can take 7+ years for students to graduate, especially if the person you're forced to have advise you stops doing it (as in the case here, obviously they're not a very good advisor to tell you you're bad at what you're doing and to just quit).
Remember, you really do have other options, you aren't stuck with this terrible advisor. Who cares if it took you X years to graduate instead of Y years. When you get your degree no one asks you how long were you in grad school for, they just say, "Hello, Doctor."
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **What does your advisor mean when they say you haven't made enough progress yet**? Did you ask them? In my field, I would expect my students to have written a couple papers by this point, but I am extremely hands-on for the first paper or two (learning to write papers is very hard for most students). I have to sit with them and outline the paper and then later sit with them in several sessions where we basically rewrite nearly every sentence. I get the idea that your advisor is somewhat hands-off. Have you made progress on any manuscripts? Is your advisor helping you with this? Do they expect you to begin having your own project ideas? Do you have any ideas of how to extend your project or take the methods that you've learned to another problem?
You shouldn't take a single person's opinion of your potential for a career in research or academia as the word of god. Should you take what they say seriously? Yes, but you should also consider it as **one data point.**
It sounds to me like your advisor is very hands-off, which may not be a good fit for you. Maybe your advisor is waiting for you to take the initiative and if you take the initiative and if you ask them they will give you the support you need? Maybe your advisor is a nice person but not a good advisor and unwilling or unable to give you the support you need. However, year 4 is rather late to be changing advisors unless you there is someone in your department with very similar research where you could make use of what you have learned so far.
**If you want to continue in academic research, producing some papers during your PhD is essential.** It will be hard to find a postdoc without some evidence of productivity. If you haven't published yet, you have two years, which is plenty of time. But you need to to start now. **You will need help.** Perhaps if you are assertive about asking for help in organizing the paper from your advisor they will help. If they are a negligent advisor, you will have to be assertive in finding help from other resources (other faculty, postdocs, other graduate students).
The reasons you give for "delays" in your project all make sense. Research is hard and most students don't understand how to do research at first. It takes years to learn. I'm not sure what you field is, but unless you are a computer scientist, it is probably okay to be not very good at coding. Have you taken any classes on data structures and algorithms? Many scientists are not very good at coding, yet use it often in their work. Even as a PI, it takes me 6–8 months to start really making progress when I start a new project. Most students are not independent when they start. When I was a graduate student, I just did what my advisor told me to do for the first 2 years. It wasn't until my 4th year that I started suggesting my own ideas for projects. However, I think at the 4th year you should be ready to start coming up with your own ideas and be able to plan and organize a paper yourself (although still with comments from your advisor).
What is your plan for the future? Do you want to continue in research? Do you want to continue in academia but are okay with a mostly teaching focused appointment? There are many academic jobs with primary teaching appointments, where you might do a little research or collaborate with other researchers. Does this interest you? Are their jobs in industry in your field?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I'd like to respond to a few of the things here.
First, your advisor's claim that you haven't made enough progress yet isn't particularly specific of feedback. It would be helpful to get more details from him about what he was expecting you to have achieved by now that you haven't. Right now, it seems like you're going off of what you assume that your advisor thinks your problems are, which may be quite different than what he actually thinks the problems are.
In my opinion, the fact that you don't already know that is a failure on your advisor's part. If he felt you weren't making adequate progress, he should've given you feedback on what he thought you needed to work on much sooner. It seems quite strange to go straight to "this subject isn't for you, quit the program" without ever having given feedback on what to work on. That kind of a discussion should never come as a surprise.
* "I didn't understand how to do research" - isn't that why people do PhD programs in the first place?
* "I can do the work but am not extremely great at coding. I am working on getting better." If this is a serious impediment to you completing your work in a timely manner, there are courses available on Coursera, Udemy, and other platforms. Don't be afraid to use resources other than the ones that your professors "officially" require/recommend. Personally, I used supplemental textbooks in most of my math coursework after I got to calculus (which was the first math class I genuinely found difficult), and I was able to complete a math degree with good grades as a direct result.
* "I am scared that if I talk to professors, they will think I am just stupid and really lack what it takes to do PhD." Are you sure that they'll react that way? What evidence do you have for or against that? It's really hard to predict whether they will or won't. I'm guessing that there'll be other professors who are more willing to work with you than your current advisor appears to be. If you don't ask, however, it'll have the same effect as if they really do think that. Also, even if they do think that, you won't be in a worse situation than you're in with your current advisor.
* "I got stuck at a point due to a misunderstanding in a concept for a long time. It took away around 6-8 months for me to know the problem." From your other statements, it seems like you may be extremely concerned about appearing stupid/ignorant/etc. This mentality could be hurting you here, as talking through the problem with other people can help you get "unstuck." I've often found that even attempting to describe the problem in detail to someone else helps me get unstuck.
One trivial example: a few years ago, I was writing a Stack Overflow question on a problem I was stuck on. When I was adding steps to reproduce, I noticed that the error message suggested an article to read - and I hadn't read it. I decided that I'd better read it (or people would ask why I hadn't). It turned out that it described my problem exactly and its recommended solution worked right away. If I hadn't gone to describe the problem in detail to other people, I likely would've continued to gloss over the link for much longer than I did.
* "Advisor have only been available through online meetings and emails. Communicating sometimes was challenging." If the way you and your advisor are doing things isn't working for you, don't be afraid to ask for what you need. If asking for what you need is difficult for you, I'd encourage you to read a book on assertiveness (or speak to a counselor to help you become more assertive).
* "I have been taught to keep professors in very high regard." It's good to respect experience and expertise, but be sure that you're not discounting your own experience, needs, and opinions in the process. The mere fact that someone's an expert in the area doesn't automatically mean that they're right. For example, the mere fact that your advisor thinks that the subject isn't for you doesn't automatically mean that it isn't - they could be wrong. You're not obligated to uncritically accept everything your professors tell you; in fact, not doing so is an important part of being independent (which is one of the areas you mention struggling in). Again, being able to express disagreement may not come naturally at first; this is another area where assertiveness training could help you.
Hopefully, there are at least a few things in here that will help you. The biggest points I would like to emphasize: first, you have nothing to lose (and potentially a lot to gain) by talking to other professors. Secondly, it sounds like assertiveness training could be very beneficial to you in this context. This will help you gain more independence and advocate for your needs and opinions more effectively. Third: don't be afraid to take advantage of outside help or resources if you need them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: My Answer comes from the graduate student point of view. I am currently in a somewhat comparable situation and can only tell what helped me.
First of all my situation is "a bit" easier, as I studied in my home country, so I don't have a lot of the things you are struggling with. But after a long time of competing with irreproducable results and thus lacking paper acceptance, I came to the point where I haven't had enough work done, another reject reached me, contract was expiring and additional funding was declined. That also left me in a pretty dark place.
The thing is, we are all humans, your professors to. So it is quite possible, that there was just a resolvable or temporal problem he did not identify as such. You describe that your work is still going good since your ultimatum, so you would have enough to show that "you are not as bad as he thought". So what I did is talk to my professor about these problems, it was a very unpleasant meeting for both parties, but just because of the topic, not because of ill behaviour. I would say, this helped me a lot, even if just in understanding the problems better, and we were able to work out a way which, although still very stressful, can leave me with a PhD in the end.
From your description I take that you can still professionally respect your supervisor and that he appeared to be a good person in general (apart from the changes you mentioned). Your case also seems to have a bit more flexibility, as the funding seems to exist and you basically only have to come to terms with your professor. After all, what helped me making this decision, is also "what if this meeting does not end well?", well so what, you will be in exactly the same position as you are now. But the prospects of such a meeting are just to good. First of all you can help him understand your situation (regarding you work, lack of which and progress of which). It could also help you in seeing things differently, maybe there are problems in your work, you are not seeing yourself, since your view is blocked by other things, maybe your assessment of your progress is faulty, that is difficult to pinpoint from a single view, especially if you are struggling with emotional problems (It was for me).
Of course this depends highly on the general relationship to your supervisor before this and I can only hope that this helps you and is applicable to your case. Keep in mind that your assesment of his "feelings" towards you, are very likely skewed due to your emotional state, and is not necessarily as bad as you think. What would be important either way, is that you don't start this meeting with any demand, but as a discussion to help you understand what you did wrong, even compared to other students which can continue (or did so in the past).
Good Luck
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: So, your supervisor set for you a deadline to reach up to a certain point lest you would have to leave the programme. After working with that deadline, you finally reached the point you had been supposed to. Now things have progressed and you feel that you doing fine.
First, I wish to congratulate you on your victory. Probably, for the first time in your life you came across a really difficult situation *in which you had to count mainly on yourself* because your communication with your supervisor was, as you said, challenging. You did great. Things are now on track.
Now, please ask yourself if you really have any reason to be "completely broken from inside". Is this how a winner should feel? -- No way.
This was a difficult battle -- which you have won. And you have acquired good trophies: strength and experience, not to mention a progress towards you future degree. So, please, do not be shy of your victory: feel proud.
Whether you choose to stay with your present supervisor is to be your decision. My only recommendation would be to base your choice on expedience, not on emotions. (Expedience, though, comprises many parameters, including your psychological comfort, and your trust in your advisor -- or lack of trust.)
Good luck with you research and your PhD thesis! You have proven to yourself that you can do it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As you have already tried the Student Councillors and that hasn't worked, and you have other good answers I thought I'd add my alternative viewpoint.
When I read your post it made me want to reply because I think you have obviously tried very hard over many years, and the feeling you currently have isn't representative of either your progress (which sounds great), or the intense feeling you have (which sounds like it is being in the middle of an explosion).
What I mean is that although you feel in the eye of the storm, you must remember this is not something that will define your whole life. That will sound ridiculous to you now, but if you can step back and look at the bigger picture it might help to give you some perspective.
I did once start an MSc that I gave up half way through (Uni life was NOT for me!).
So, I'd like to be honest and compassionate with you?
* I think doing a PhD is not a "job" for everyone. It may be that is the case for you and maybe your advisor has just waited too long for you to "shine" and then it got so late and he is struggling to let you know in a compassionate way (as others have said he's probably just human).
* Having said that, I wasn't born good at communicating but knowing it was my destiny to try improve I work at it every day. It's "hard" for me to do, but it is also part of me. What I'm trying to say is that maybe your level is not good enough currently for where you are in the PhD, but if it is your destiny to get one, then maybe you do need to work 2 times as hard to get there, and maybe that means having hard conversations with your advisor (not aggressive, just vulnerable where you are honest about how you feel - more on that later).
* It does sound from your description that he is (as someone else put it very politely) hands-off. This means he has no time to actually teach you and expects you to just do it. It sounds like this is not what you need. There are a number of options here but getting an expert second opinion would be useful. If you're struggling to find someone at your university you could "hire" a new advisor to help you focus (they could coach and mentor you through the problem). Use something like Upwork/PeoplePerHour (or something similar where you can find an expert in the field you are in - I have nothing to do with them but use them regularly to get hold of really specific expertise), you can post a job for someone with the expertise you need and ask them to be a coach and mentor and see what they say. This could be a great way to get another independent viewpoint that helps you decide if your destiny is to carry on or not. Or make changes to your current one.
* If you are able to have a sit down conversation with your advisor and get an emotional connection with him, letting him know you respect him and that you really need his help and how it is affecting your mentally, this may enable him to tap into some compassion. Also, if you try and do this and he brushes you off it will demonstrate he doesn't really care about your feelings (this might be because he is just interested in results and not emotions).
* You must also realise there is a possibility he is under a lot of stress from the university, his wife, his mortgage etc. This is a possibility, but if you have funding this doesn't sound right.
* Also there is a possibility he is a bad advisor and he just cares about himself. This means you need to take what he says with some disbelief. Obviously it's hard to know if this is true or not, you need to use your intuition. A lot of people that are "Professors" love to be "famous", this can skew their viewpoint and mean they make the wrong decisions. I would not assume this is the case but it's something to think on.
SO WHAT NEXT? I advise you to do a number of things:
Think deeply if the PhD is right for YOU. Or, do you not care a lot about the PhD but want to stay in the US? If this is your ultimate goal you NEED to find a way to complete the PhD. This could be biting your lip and doing whatever your advisor needs, or finding a new university, or course or advisor (I am saying those realising it is not easy, but if you really want to complete the PhD you need to start working out what the best way forward is).
I would get a second opinion on your abilities and progress. Try and find an "Honest but compassionate PhD advisor" that is an expert in your field and get them to appraise what you've done. This could help you decide if you carry on or try something else. You need someone that will be honest and say if they think your work is at a high enough standard, and if it ever will be.
Slightly left field one here. Take 2 min cold showers daily. A lot of times we are fearful of the truth and we are worried about so many things happening in life it makes us immobile to get on with what we need to do. When you have a cold shower it resets your nervous system, and you can be a bit more rational and less emotional. This may help you see a way through the current pain, especially if you do it daily.
Finally: I believe all the things in life are MEANT to happen to us for a reason. Even if you flunk the PhD (I'm so glad I gave mine up looking back) you might go home back to your country and end up bumping into your future partner and you live happily ever after with them. And that would be much better than slogging on a PhD and not finding "the one" etc.
In reality this is a small part of your life even though it feels like everything now. You need to look a little bit ahead to the future and just try and work out the best way forward for you.
You've come so far. Don't stop, and keep going in the direction you know in your heart is right, just remember it might be slightly different (or even a LOT different) and I'm sure based on what you've said and how hard you try you'll get there eventually.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: TLDR: Focus on graduating as soon as possible, only use your advisor for things directly related to that goal. Do not use them for emotional support.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
The current top answers focus on seeking counseling\* and exploring other professors\*\* in the department. Those are reasonable options, but I think miss the mark a bit.
Your advisor has stated he "doesn't think the subject is for you," and that you haven't made enough progress, but has offered no evidence to support that. You provide evidence that your progress is sufficient (possibly even more than sufficient), and other than normal temporary setbacks you don't identify any major obstacles to completing your thesis.
First, other than severe lack of progress, it's not your advisor's decision whether to continue your program. As long as you're progressing, that decision is yours alone, and you should only leave the program if that is what **you** want. It doesn't sound from your comments like that is what you want, so I'll assume for this answer that your goal is to complete your degree.
As others have pointed out, your progression sounds on-track for this point in your degree. Advancing to candidacy and having an approved research plan are major accomplishments that you should be proud of, and are direct evidence of your progress. You describe in other comments that you've authored 3 papers, with one in Nature. If any of these are first-author papers they are also major accomplishments.\*\*\*
Unfortunately, your advisor's discouraging words, and the difficulty communicating with him, signal to me that he is not, *and is not going to be*, your enthusiastic supporter. This is understandably very discouraging and an emotional blow.
It is understandable to hold professors in high regard as a graduate student. Keep in mind, though, that being a professor is only evidence that they are a subject matter expert. Simply knowing someone is a professor does not tell you if they are a good manager, communicator, or advisor. It also doesn't mean they're any good at knowing who "has it in them" to accomplish a goal.
You have evidence that your advisor's assertions about your progress are not true. In fact, you don't need your advisor to affirm that you are making progress, you can check that for yourself. You have a research plan that was (presumably) approved by your advisor and committee. This is your progress guide. If you are advancing on your research plan, you are advancing.
With this in mind, my recommendation is to acknowledge that your advisor is not going to have the expanded role most people wish for in the advisor/student relationship. They aren't going to be your cheerleader. They aren't going to give you encouragement. They probably won't give you good career advice.
This is discouraging, but it's not the end of the world (or of your degree). You have a year or two left on progressing your research plan and writing your dissertation. Use your advisor only for the things that are needed to accomplish that. They can (and probably should) advise on experimental setup and analyses. They should be responsive to editing manuscripts and chapters. They should do the paperwork that needs to be done to keep the lab and your position going.
Another answer suggests trying to sit down and making an emotional connection with your advisor. I disagree. I don't think you should spend your energy trying to convince them of anything other than that you are doing dissertation quality work. (This is obviously very personal advice. Only you know your relationship with him, and maybe trying to convince him to be supportive and that you're brilliant is worth it. But at the end of the day all you need is for him to sign off on your thesis, you don't need him to be chummy while doing it.)
You will also need to make sure that he is holding up his responsibilities as an advisor. This means some minimal amount of communication. It means responding to experimental questions and edits in a timely manner. It means acknowledging progress on your research plan. It means providing reasonable lab resources to do your work.
His focus on progress might manifest as a suggestion that the research you've already outlined is not enough for a degree. This is when you pull out your research plan, that everyone signed off on, and ask what has changed to demand more work. Your committee can help with this, too. (My uni had a requirement that committees include a member from a different department to represent the student's interests. If yours has something similar, they can also guard against piling on work.)
Focus on finishing your thesis. Don't take on any extra lab or department duties you don't have to.
Finally, find your allies who will be supportive. Get encouragement and affirmation from your friends, fellow students, and family.
---
\*Counseling is an excellent suggestion, and an appropriate place to work on your emotional needs and get a detached perspective. I see your other comments that you haven't found it very helpful. Consider discussing with your counselor what might help this, and use whatever counseling benefits you have to their maximum.
\*\*Several other answers suggest switching advisors. This might ultimately be needed, but I don't think that's a given, yet. As far along as you are, it might be very difficult to find a new advisor, and you'd spend a lot of time figuring out all the logistical issues in switching, such as funding, space, etc. You might also run into objections from your current advisor (I don't know what their incentives are, maybe a student switching looks worse than one dropping out). You'd have to weigh whether it's worth your time to go through that, compared to putting that effort into your thesis. However, if your advisor begins actively blocking your progress, or essentially abandons you so that you can't progress, by all means, find someone else.
\*\*If all three are first-author papers, you're progress is excellent. If that's the case you should seriously consider how to transform those into the bulk of your thesis. This also may be evidence of actual obstruction from your advisor, because it would be highly inappropriate to suggest that a 4th year student with three papers leave a program.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I am not a professor but I just got out of a situation just like this. I had to go to a psychological counselor to deal with my burnout, which did not resolve my issue. I was miserable, I wasn't nice to myself, my friends, or my family. After a lot of contemplation, I took some steps that turned my life around. I can't say with absolute certainty that how I handled my situation will suit your case perfectly but I can lend my experience so you can make a more educated decision.
First things first, you have done an excellent job explaining your situation and acknowledging your own shortcomings in an honest and forthcoming manner - I really appreciate it.
Let me deconstruct your situation a bit and in doing so, I will try to get your hopes and confidence up. Think of it this way:
1. Your supervisor asked you to "voluntarily" leave the program. He didn't enforce it, he merely suggested it.
2. When you asked for a reason, he gave you his opinion and in his opinion, you haven't made enough progress yet - which is nothing but his opinion.
Now, I am putting myself in your shoes. I understand that you feel like there is too much at stake here and getting your degree solely depends on your supervisor's whim. You probably have been dreaming of your Ph.D. from a very early stage of your life and the person holding your destiny thinks that you don't have it in you. Here is why I think you are overthinking it.
Most immigrant students (like myself) who come to North America for thesis-based Master's and/or Ph.D. programs depend solely on the funds provided by the professors. Most of the time (around 95%), the professors' funding is the only source of income for immigrant students, who are not allowed to work off-campus in the USA. As a result, the students gradually become submissive and subservient to their professors. And thus, the mere opinions of the supervising professor can make or break the graduate students' spirit. Things are even more complicated for Asian or South Asian students, where people regard teachers at the same level as (or higher than) their parents. I remember one of my fellow graduate students saying, "I don't believe I will amount to anything without my supervisor's blessing", which is, I won't deny, a great gesture to have about the teachers but such deification can be quite detrimental for the students (especially adult graduate students) in many ways. When such students find their teacher standing between them and their dreams, they either lose confidence in themselves or start to vilify the teacher.
If you belong to the first cluster (I believe you do), please consider the option of focusing less on your professor's authority. Deal with this situation as you'd deal with your peers. Yes, your supervisor is ahead of you by a couple of years (let that be 50) in academia but that doesn't mean they have the right to intimidate you out of your program. A supervisor who oversees a graduate student’s work should share the same level of responsibility and accountability for the quality and outcome of the student’s degree as the student themselves. "I don't think you have it in you" or "You don't have much progress" are vague and do not carry much value as far as the feedbacks go.
From what I understand, your supervisor had some expectations in mind that he thinks you did not fulfill. You can take the following steps to mitigate the situation:
* *Confront your supervisor about his remarks and let him know that quitting is not an option for you.*
* *Don't be afraid to share that you struggled because he was not as on-hand at the beginning of your journey as you'd expected and you didn't get a chance to start fresh (You had to assimilate yourself with other's work, which can be quite daunting).*
* *Share your discomfort about feeling inferior when he is around. You mentioned you can put together a well-rounded presentation in front of others when your professor is not around and you mess up when he is around you. According to my psych counselor, a healthy adult and independent person's behavior should never be affected this much (I was in the same boat for a while) by the mere presence of another person. "Do not become too susceptible to others' opinions, no matter how superior you deem them to be." - that's what she said.*
* *Do NOT underestimate yourself. Remember, you have fought your way into the program. The supervisor/university recruited you because they thought you have it in you to finish the program expectations.*
* *Discuss what is expected of you in the next 2 years of your study and set an expectation that you both can agree upon. Negotiate with your supervisor and find a realistic goal that works for both of you.*
If you can come to terms with your supervisor and agree upon certain goals that you need to achieve to get your degree, work towards it - slowly and steadily. Keep your professor in the loop - send three progress reports on a daily basis, 5 days a week (at 12 PM, 5 PM, and 9 PM), no matter how trivial the progress is. I am sure your supervisor will appreciate the effort and resilience.
On the other hand, if you can't agree upon some acceptable terms, if you and your supervisor have different opinions or goals that you cannot reconcile, or if the chasm of your supervisor's expectation is too deep for you to fill, it's better to approach your department with these concerns. I am pretty sure you have to report your annual progress to some sort of supervisory committee, which comprises multiple professors from your department. Go to them, be honest, explain your situation, and do not sell yourself short. They have the authority and they can intervene on your behalf. Sometimes they tend to make decisions or judgments based on what the majority of the committee members think (due to group-thinking bias), rather than depending on their own independent analysis or evidence. This can lead them to show favoritism toward the people who belong to their group (i.e. your supervisor). If that happens, you can resort to your dean's office for help.
*Remember,* **"You haven't come this far, to only get this far"**
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/22
| 769
| 3,229
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Japanese, currently living in the US. After graduating from university, I worked as an economic researcher in Japan for 11 years, and then I decided to study gender in the UK. I chose the UK since it was a one-year programme, and also because I grew up there. I had my son right after completing my MA, then I just threw myself into raising my child, which was not easy but rather an interesting experience for my academic background.
Fast forward 18 years and our son will be off to the UK himself to start university, and I feel like I've finished one big project. I've done a lot of volunteering work at school and did some translation/interpretation works, but have been out of any "official" workforce or academia. Will it be too difficult to go back to academia at this stage? It has been my passion to explore gender issues, so I've been trying to figure it out... I appreciate any kind of advice!<issue_comment>username_1: One can do a Ph.D. at any age. Lots of people come from the industry and are definitely older than their early 20s. There is a very eclectic mix overall, in the US, UK, Asia, etc. You just need to reach out to a potential supervisor and they'll point you in the right direction.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't see a problem with doing a PhD in an older age. I would say that you would have the advantage of being more mature and have probably project management skills due to your experience in industry.
You may need some time to "recall" the relevant theoretical part of your field that more recent graduates will remember from their lectures but I wouldn't think that is an issue.
The only challenge you may face is not being able to connect with other PhD students due to the age difference, but this may also depend on your personality and the lab environment.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You will face some hurdles. Your child-rearing will not damage your chances to get into a Ph.D. program, though getting funding will be more difficult. If you can self-finance, this is not a problem. Also, this is very discipline dependent since in most of the humanities, funding is not a given, in contrast to Computer Science.
You will also have to deal with the psychological costs of a Ph.D. Most people going through it will go through periods of self-doubt and have to struggle with ideas of just giving up. This is easier to overcome if you are young and have no accomplishments other than your studies. You need to make sure that you have a clear career goal instead of a vague feeling that you might have missed out on an academic career or that you are now in a different phase of your life.
You will also have to give yourself some time to retool. Even after a decade, discussion in a field has usually moved on and what was once hot and trendy is no more. Also, there is often real progress and methodology has become refined.
Be assured that you are not the first one to embark on a doctorate at a slightly advanced age. Just make sure you have the right motivation, deal with financing, have a career goal that makes sense, and know that feelings of inadequacy and frustration are common even among the youngsters.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/23
| 478
| 1,993
|
<issue_start>username_0: Sometimes I receive review requests from journals that are not popular among my colleagues. I'm not so sure about the situation of these journals. They are typically Web of Science SCI Q2 journals (e.g., [EUR PHYS J PLUS](https://www.springer.com/journal/13360)), but for reasons I don't know they are often not our choice. We simply have other more popular Q2 journals.
Should I invest my time in the review work for them? What are the pros and cons?<issue_comment>username_1: Maybe these journals are going to grow substantially within the next years and become powerhouses in your field? Then you might be happy to have some good contacts with the journal and their editorial board.
Personally, I do not review for journals in which I cannot afford to publish on my own because the APC is too high. I experienced this issue in the past where a big publishing house (looking for frontiers in some field) would not be willing to give me a 15% discount on the APC although I reviewed for them one article per month. What I want to say is that we have to support smaller publishers to have more diversity.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **There's no major difference from the pros and cons of reviewing for other journals**
Editors send so many reviewer invitations that they won't bat an eye at yet another reviewer who declines. If you give a highly unusual reason they might remember, and "I will not review for journals that I would not publish in" qualifies as such a reason (since it takes a strong affirmative stance that leaves the question "why won't you publish in this journal?" unanswered). But if you write "I don't have time to review for journals that I don't publish in", that's unremarkable enough that they'd probably not remember after a while.
I suppose if you review for a journal which is lower tier than those that publishes your papers, chances are good the paper is less interesting, but that's about it.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/23
| 582
| 2,446
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to ask why mega journals (large journals designed to be much larger than a traditional journal and with a very broad audience, e.g. Scientific Reports, PlosOne, BMJ Open, Heliyon, ... to name a few) are so popular / receive so many reputations. Why do people choose such journals over field-specific journals. As for me, I would never go to the homepage of Scientific Reports, Heliyon, etc. to screen the most recent articles because the subject span is to broad for me. I understand that their acceptance rates are a crucial factor - but is there anything else I did not consider?<issue_comment>username_1: I never go to e.g. Nature to skim through it in hopes to find the paper that matches my field, however, I tend to be aware of such papers. They tend to be quite public at least within the research field communities.
Which leads to what I think its a conflation of concepts you are making in your question. They are not reputable because they are a good source of information for all fields, on the contrary, they are reputable because they only publish "groundbreaking"\* research, from any field. Prize-deserving research. So it is reputable to get a paper in Nature because you got in, not because other people from your research field will read it. Its the exclusivity that makes them reputable, the "stamp of approval" that a publication in these journals gives you as a researcher, and to your field, because its considered "important enough" to be on Nature. In some way its a lesser form of a price, as very little people get in.
This does not mean I agree with such "reputation-based" system for academia. But the truth is that academia works a bit like this, and the above paragraph describes how many people see publications in these journals.
\*In theory, of course, not saying this is necessarily true.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is the [Matthew effect.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect)
A reason some people select a journal to try to publish in is prestige. A reason some people judge a journal to have prestige is the famous articles published there. This provides a positive feedback. A famous article makes the journal more prestigious. Being more prestigious attracts more attempts to publish by people doing interesting work. If the editorial process is handled with care this can produce a journal that becomes more and more prestigious.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/23
| 1,252
| 5,088
|
<issue_start>username_0: I started my PhD in engineering in 2018 right after finishing Master's. In my 3nd year, COVID happened and I couldn't continue my research for various reasons. I tried to switch topic, but after doing it for about a year I couldn't find the passion to continue doing research.
My family convinced me to try at it a bit longer and I did, but time passed by without significant progress. I decided to quit and am now looking for a job in an industry related to my field. (Officially, I am still in the program, but I don't have any desire to finish.)
My concern is how should I present this on my CV. As the normal duration for Ph.D. program is three years, and I extended it to 5-6 years without being able to get the degree.<issue_comment>username_1: I left PhD after 4 years. I have my PhD time under "experience" not under "education" and I have explicit "not completed" line to prevent any confusions. In my experience, no one will care if you finished your PhD or not if you have the necessary skills for industry. In fact lots of people in the industry do not have the highest opinion of academia and they totally understand why someone would leave.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Since you are still in the program, you can write that you are on a leave of absence, not completed, moved to 'candidate' (assuming you passed your exams already), etc. Speaking of that, does your university offer the option of a non-thesis terminal Master's with what you've done so far? That'd take care of the issue.
There's no shame in leaving a program if you've lost the motivation for it and don't see yourself restarting a new research topic. In fact, there's a lot to be said about someone with the wisdom to know when quitting and moving on is the best option. Your family might be disappointed because it's hard to explain how stressful grad school is to outsiders. But the people that matter, ie hiring managers, don't care. They care about your skills and experience.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: PhD supervisor here. I'd suggest listing it for what it is—you have done a few years of research work and hopefully learned a bunch of useful stuff from them. The same as you would have gained by, say, working in a company R&D lab for that time.
It's sad when PhDs don't work out, but sometimes it happens and everyone knows that. There are lots of random factors—personalities, supervisors, topics, fundings, and life events, many of which are completely beyond your control. Can you change supervisor and/or topic to get to the finish line? Maybe talk to your supervisor and university to see if there are any options for you to go back and finish it later in your career? (E.g., [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_May) from [Queen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(band)) did this!) Or sometimes if you take an industry R&D job you can carry on some of your research or something related and roll that into finishing a thesis. Talk to companies about those options?
If you just want a qualification now—do you have enough material to write up and submit something now, either as a PhD attempt or as a lesser degree like an MRes or MPhil perhaps? Did you publish anything during your research? If so—publications are generally more valuable than PhD degrees nowadays. When we hire for postdocs we are looking for publications rather than degrees.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I left my first PhD after 3 years (out of 5 years) in 2021 due to various reasons. My official designation at the time was "Junior Research Fellow" and this is how it reflects on my CV. I'm yet to be questioned on it - I'm still in academia though in another PhD program (finishing in one year).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: First of all, let me congratulate you on making a decision and acting on it.
It is a bold step to aboard any undertaking after such a long time.
From my experience of quitting a PhD mid-way, the only harm would be to not having learned from it.
Compared to someone who always passed without a hassle, you know your limits -- and some companies find value in that.
How about presenting a CV where you also write the subjects of what you did when?
That way, you can split your career steps within the PhD program visually into shorter sections.
Also, depending on what you did in parallel, you can list that with overlapping dates.
Prepare yourself to have one (not many) consistent explanation why a PhD didn't work out for you, when asked about it, or when you tell the story of your journey.
I mean, if you get asked about it during a hiring process, you're already talking with people about what's important: you.
Don't try and hide the fact of coming out of a dead end!
You never know, what background checks a company might run, what people they know in your surroundings, etc.
And you'll probably tell your future colleagues about that time anyway.
There is a lot of potentially non-repairable damage, if anybody later gets the feeling of a deceit during the hiring process.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/23
| 853
| 3,685
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working as a research fellow to a professor in a college. This is my first time as a research fellow. I was working as a software engineer before this. I want to apply for grad schools, and to gain research experience I decided to work for this professor.
The professor has his own startup that is in very early stage. He already has a product that he is trying to sell.
I don't really like the work with the professor that much. It has been two months and I worked mostly on operations work for his startup (like converting the monolith server to microservices..) and not much research. Even the research work is not interesting because we are not trying to solve a problem but just trying to get a good accuracy score (trying to hack the existing solution here and there to get a better score), that will help to publish a paper. As I am planning to apply to graduate schools, I have to start application by this October. So I don't think I will able to do anything substantial in the meantime.
Until now I was a staff in the same college where he is a professor and was designated as a research fellow. Now I want to work remotely because of my health condition and the college is not okay with it. So I have to quit working for the college and work for him alone remotely. The college is paying me, but if quit working for the college, I will not be paid by the professor.
So is it worthwhile to work for free, when I do not like the work just so that I will get a letter of recommendation. How much of an impact will the LOR generate in my graduate school application?<issue_comment>username_1: Graduate schools are going to want to know that you have good potential to succeed in research. One way to show that is by having research experience and having someone that can talk positively about your research experience.
It doesn't sound like you're getting research experience. It does sound like your boss is abusing a research position for his own financial gain. If it's for his financial benefit, he should be able to pay you himself and the university shouldn't enter in to the situation at all. He's not, though, he just wants you to work for free or work with someone else paying you, for his benefit.
The "research" component you describe sounds fraudulent. Perhaps this sort of fraud is common in the area you are working in and other professors will be excited to hire someone familiar with this sort of fraud, but hopefully not.
This all sounds like a terrible arrangement for you. I don't know what benefit a recommendation letter from this person will hold. Maybe he will never give you such a letter because he'd like to keep getting more free work, and can only get more free work with the promise of some future letter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am struggling to think of an upside for you. It sounds like a terrible idea from all angles.
1. If you are working for free in the hopes of a good letter of reference, he will not give you a letter, because you will then get the only thing that's keeping you there working for free.
2. Forget about putting this deal (free work for letter) in writing. He won't put this illegal arrangement in writing, and if he does it won't be enforceable. Like someone once told me: *the best contract is dealing with honest people in the first place*. No amount of paperwork is going to make an unethical person behave.
3. If he does give you a letter of reference, it might not be worth much coming from him.
4. Even if he were to write the letter, he can't speak about your research abilities, since you are doing no research.
There's nothing in this deal for you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/23
| 1,439
| 5,609
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've got a library of 1200 references I'm using for a systematic review. Now I need to download the PDFs of all these references, which will take days if I do it manually. Is there a simple way to automatically download as many as possible from pubmed / Google Scholar / (maybe Scihub)? I have institutional access.
I was hoping to find some reference manager software that is capable of this, but no luck so far.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know of any tool to specifically scrape academic databases for pdf's. There may be some obscure program out there on GitHub or a web-crawler that could be repurposed. This [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21353/are-there-any-tools-to-automatically-search-and-download-literature-in-a-given) is a bit dated but addresses your problem in more detail and proposes some interesting solutions in that vein.
The easiest off the shelf solution is Endnote. It has a feature that allows for automatic [search and retrieval](https://support.clarivate.com/Endnote/s/article/EndNote-Enable-Automatic-Import-of-PDFs?language=en_US) of pdf's. If you have access, it works fairly well. Though it doesn't capture *everything*. I suspect that there are other reference managers with a similar feature. I don't know of free ones specifically, if that is a concern.
If none of those options are workable for you, consider if it is necessary to download all those pdf's. I'm assuming that you are just beginning to conduct your screening and so you likely don't need the full texts right away. I have conducted a handful of systematic reviews and I have always relied on title and abstract for the initial screen. If I could not make a decision from that info, simply navigating to the original online version was sufficient. Since you already have institutional access, why store them on your local device from the get-go? It would be significantly easier to download and store the papers you flag for further review or inclusion. This may not be right in your case, but it's something to consider if all else fails.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: For systematic review, if you're following PRISMA, you'll typically do some preliminary 'checks' before getting to the lists for full text review.
I'm assuming the 1200 odd references are your final list after the duplicate removal and screening, and perhaps your forward-and-reverse literature chaining.
In Zotero, you can enable [automatic PDF download](https://www.zotero.org/support/adding_items_to_zotero) in preference. For your purpose, you then [bulk import reference using doi or bibtex or ris](https://www.zotero.org/support/adding_items_to_zotero).
* Someone recently developed a [working script for bulk adding doi and updating metadata](https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/102537/bulk-adding-dois-and-update-metadata-by-using-the-doi)
The trick with Zotero is that Zotero is able to download pdf link to an entry from multiple sources. There are limitations though.
Beware that most academic database would lock you out if performing large bulk downloads at fast rate. Always a good idea to use proxy. In your case, you already having institutional access which might assist.
With Endnote, you can bulk import PDF files or like you have in Mendeley, you can set a 'watch' on a folder from which Endnote will automatically import entries for PDF files added to the folder. Unfortunately, that does not address your challenge.
With Endnote, similar to Zotero, you can import reference list to populate tour Endnote database.
* simply export reference list from your search (Google, Scopus ...) to a RIS file.
---
[Technical approach beyond the scope of Academia forum]
For other technical solutions beyond the scope of Academia, you can work directly with API of academic database.
* Science direct and Scopus provide API access, which you register for for free. You'll still need access to perform low-level tasks and download.
* you can leverage Python to work with academic database API
* for Google Scholar, use Scholarly: [Scholarly pypi](https://pypi.org/project/scholarly/), [GitHub](https://github.com/scholarly-python-package/scholarly)
* for Scopus, [pybliometrics](https://pypi.org/project/pybliometrics/) is well used.
* [Pyscopus](https://notebook.community/zhiyzuo/pyscopus/Quick-Start) claims to be more friendly. I'm yet to use Pyscopus unlike others. More so, it's inactive since 2019!
There's one I've used recently, just can't recall the name offhand. It allows robust analysis and topic search. I'll update in due course.
[Scientific PDF download]
* [RESP: Research Papers Search](https://github.com/monk1337/resp) claims to search and download scientific papers. Yet to try it out.
* [Articledownloader](https://pypi.org/project/articledownloader/) is worth exploring
* [PyPaperBot](https://github.com/ferru97/PyPaperBot) is well used for downloading scientific articles from DOI or academic database.
I'm busy with a fork of [Automated Search Helper](https://github.com/username_2/AutomatedSearchHelper/tree/bincom). A research project by <NAME> team at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Poland. I'm yet to upload latest revision which has the
* pdf downloader working with JSGlue, Jinja2
* I have it working locally but need some code clean-up and documentation.
NB: with automatic downloaders, beware of captcha and blocking/ban by academic database
[SciPDFParser](https://github.com/titipata/scipdf_parser) comes across as a good parser of downloaded articles PDF.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/23
| 1,421
| 5,525
|
<issue_start>username_0: This may be a question that does not belong here, but...
What advice would you give someone who is preparing for exams and cares about grades. What advice do should I follow during the exam and after the exam as someone who stresses about grades?
Please be harsh, I really do not believe that "grades are just grades in the end".<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know of any tool to specifically scrape academic databases for pdf's. There may be some obscure program out there on GitHub or a web-crawler that could be repurposed. This [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21353/are-there-any-tools-to-automatically-search-and-download-literature-in-a-given) is a bit dated but addresses your problem in more detail and proposes some interesting solutions in that vein.
The easiest off the shelf solution is Endnote. It has a feature that allows for automatic [search and retrieval](https://support.clarivate.com/Endnote/s/article/EndNote-Enable-Automatic-Import-of-PDFs?language=en_US) of pdf's. If you have access, it works fairly well. Though it doesn't capture *everything*. I suspect that there are other reference managers with a similar feature. I don't know of free ones specifically, if that is a concern.
If none of those options are workable for you, consider if it is necessary to download all those pdf's. I'm assuming that you are just beginning to conduct your screening and so you likely don't need the full texts right away. I have conducted a handful of systematic reviews and I have always relied on title and abstract for the initial screen. If I could not make a decision from that info, simply navigating to the original online version was sufficient. Since you already have institutional access, why store them on your local device from the get-go? It would be significantly easier to download and store the papers you flag for further review or inclusion. This may not be right in your case, but it's something to consider if all else fails.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: For systematic review, if you're following PRISMA, you'll typically do some preliminary 'checks' before getting to the lists for full text review.
I'm assuming the 1200 odd references are your final list after the duplicate removal and screening, and perhaps your forward-and-reverse literature chaining.
In Zotero, you can enable [automatic PDF download](https://www.zotero.org/support/adding_items_to_zotero) in preference. For your purpose, you then [bulk import reference using doi or bibtex or ris](https://www.zotero.org/support/adding_items_to_zotero).
* Someone recently developed a [working script for bulk adding doi and updating metadata](https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/102537/bulk-adding-dois-and-update-metadata-by-using-the-doi)
The trick with Zotero is that Zotero is able to download pdf link to an entry from multiple sources. There are limitations though.
Beware that most academic database would lock you out if performing large bulk downloads at fast rate. Always a good idea to use proxy. In your case, you already having institutional access which might assist.
With Endnote, you can bulk import PDF files or like you have in Mendeley, you can set a 'watch' on a folder from which Endnote will automatically import entries for PDF files added to the folder. Unfortunately, that does not address your challenge.
With Endnote, similar to Zotero, you can import reference list to populate tour Endnote database.
* simply export reference list from your search (Google, Scopus ...) to a RIS file.
---
[Technical approach beyond the scope of Academia forum]
For other technical solutions beyond the scope of Academia, you can work directly with API of academic database.
* Science direct and Scopus provide API access, which you register for for free. You'll still need access to perform low-level tasks and download.
* you can leverage Python to work with academic database API
* for Google Scholar, use Scholarly: [Scholarly pypi](https://pypi.org/project/scholarly/), [GitHub](https://github.com/scholarly-python-package/scholarly)
* for Scopus, [pybliometrics](https://pypi.org/project/pybliometrics/) is well used.
* [Pyscopus](https://notebook.community/zhiyzuo/pyscopus/Quick-Start) claims to be more friendly. I'm yet to use Pyscopus unlike others. More so, it's inactive since 2019!
There's one I've used recently, just can't recall the name offhand. It allows robust analysis and topic search. I'll update in due course.
[Scientific PDF download]
* [RESP: Research Papers Search](https://github.com/monk1337/resp) claims to search and download scientific papers. Yet to try it out.
* [Articledownloader](https://pypi.org/project/articledownloader/) is worth exploring
* [PyPaperBot](https://github.com/ferru97/PyPaperBot) is well used for downloading scientific articles from DOI or academic database.
I'm busy with a fork of [Automated Search Helper](https://github.com/username_2/AutomatedSearchHelper/tree/bincom). A research project by <NAME> team at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Poland. I'm yet to upload latest revision which has the
* pdf downloader working with JSGlue, Jinja2
* I have it working locally but need some code clean-up and documentation.
NB: with automatic downloaders, beware of captcha and blocking/ban by academic database
[SciPDFParser](https://github.com/titipata/scipdf_parser) comes across as a good parser of downloaded articles PDF.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/24
| 752
| 3,478
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a strong background in computer science, with a significant publication record in top journals and conferences. After completing a five-year postdoctoral position, I have recently become an Assistant Professor. I am thinking about the challenges associated with publishing single-author papers, particularly in the field of AI within computer science.
Are the chances of getting published as a solo author poor compared to multiple authors?<issue_comment>username_1: In Computer Science often papers are published in conference proceedings, where the review process is double blind.
So having one or ten authors in the author list does not make any difference to get the paper published.
Moreover as an assistant professor I don't see an issue with publishing solo even in a non double blind review process.
From my perspective, the major issue would be to find time to write up the paper and importantly perform the necessary numerical experiments to get the paper published, given the other time demanding responsibilities your position will have.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: It's unclear whether the question asked is about the process of research or the process of publishing. If the latter, which may be suggested by the phrasing "chances of getting published", I feel like this question betrays some wrong thinking regarding authorship.
For a given work, everyone who contributed as an author should be credited as one, and no one should be added as an author who didn't contribute as one. No modifications to this should be made in either direction to game the publishing process.
For the process of research part, though, I do think it's more challenging to publish as a single author. Doing all the work yourself may not be as efficient as collaborating with others and combining your strengths, and you are more likely to miss key implications or weaknesses in the work. Most importantly, you lack the collaborative back and forth process that shapes your ideas and thinking.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You are asking the wrong question. You should ask, why do you want to write solo papers? Do you think they will help you getting a permanent position as a full professor? Will it help for applications to grants or tenure tracks?
I think the position in the list of authors or being the only author of a paper is of less value compared to the changes of getting a much stronger, more impactful publication. Collaborating with peers helps you to get a better paper, it shares the load among multiple stages, it combines various experiences, backgrounds, and interests.
I don't see the upside of a single author paper - unless you struggle with people, communication, or trust.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: It shouldn't be a problem when you have a strong publishing record. Double blindness may help, but I highly doubt it is a crucial factor as long as you post it on any preprint server like arxiv.
However, the question you should ask yourself is why you want to publish a single author paper? As an assistant professor, you don't need to demonstrate that you can work independently. That is the task of a senior PhD/junior postdoc. An assistant professor is supposed to make strong connections in the department, train PhD students, and get decent grant money. All of these benefit from collaboration and publish together with senior scientists, colleagues and your own students.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/24
| 1,263
| 5,336
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing a PhD in molecular modeling and simulation.
It seems like AI is becoming (or, rather has already become) a household name in research.
Typically people learn things by enrolling in a short-term diploma or MSc program. However, those are generally considered for people without a Ph.D.
What is the ideal way for learning something new after a Ph.D.?
Are self-study and workshops the only options?<issue_comment>username_1: If you already have a PhD, self-study generally is the way to go. A PhD should have taught you the ability to self-study effectively and often people will give you credit for that.
In a work context you can claim basic knowledge from self-study on almost any topic (don't lie, you have to actually do the self-study). Deeper knowledge is then shown by work experience in the area.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you boil it down, a Ph.D. is a big project that you have to figure out on your own, often by teaching yourself many skills that might be needed (which you rarely know in advance). After completing it you have to write it up and publish the result (as a paper, data, web application, etc).
So you can do the same with anything else you want to learn. For example, I learned about data science by taking a project in archeology (I'm a physicist). To finish and publish it I had to learn data science and web development. I learned from Coursera, YouTube tutorials, Stack Overflow, Discord servers, asking around for help, etc.
If you are specifically interested in AI, you can become a code contributor to projects you like on GitHub or by developing a side project related to your work, which can benefit from AI.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The other answers have good ideas that include self-study, formal and informal courses, books, web-based tutorials. To add to these, here are some more career options:
* Historically, a post-doctoral fellowship would teach new skills and that was why a PhD-holder would have these positions (see many other posts on this site about the pitfalls of postdocs).
* Sabbaticals offer faculty a chance to learn something new. Some faculty take this time to visit other labs or visit and work with other researchers to learn new skills from them.
* Formal professional development programs exist like the [AAAS's S&T Policy Fellow](https://www.aaas.org/programs/science-technology-policy-fellowships) to help people learn new skills and broaden their horizon.
* Programs like the [Fullbright Scholarship Program](https://fulbrightscholars.org/) exist and will fund people to travel abroad to learn about new things as well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm a phd student. Lots of my REAL learning comes from working with my coworkers (who are mainly experts in ML/causal inference/econometrics). I've literally spent the last 2 days debugging my friend's Python code for the estimator he created for his dissertation, and I've learned more than I've wanted to about.... convex optimization, software engineering, python dictionaries, indecies, and all kinds of stuff that I'd just not needed before. So for me, even while I'm a student, I learn a lot by working on applied problems that I'm really interested in, with people who know more about a subject than I do.
I should also note, this code will be used for my job too, so it'll have further reaching implications than just school. Point is, work on things you like, things that may be hard but things you're really interested in knowing about.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If anything, a PhD degree should prepare you for maintaining a learning and growth mindset for the rest of your life. In fact, it is what many people embark on PhD research with: the intrinsic drive and motivation to learn new things, come up with new questions and find information and ways to tackle those - over and over again.
There is nothing to stop you from continuing along this line in the rest of your future career and life, regardless of whether you continue in academia (one might argue that doing a postdoc while shifting fields is a great way to learn new things) - but of course you don't need the intensity or full submersion that a professional degree or training can give you. Decide if you want to learn for yourself (in which case the possibilities are endless) or whether you also want/need to document it on your CV for future reference (in which case you might want something with an official certificate or an official workshop/course).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> Typically people learn things by enrolling in a short-term diploma or MSc program.
>
>
>
This one made me laugh. No, typically people learn things without pursuing any educational qualification at all, and it is only PhDs who seem to lose sight of this fact. If you want to learn a new thing after your PhD then you should think back to how you learned things before your PhD. If you want to learn AI you could start by reading some introductory papers about it and perhaps doing some practice with computational packages that implement relevant models. There are formal courses and programs available for AI if you want to go in this direction, but it is okay to dip your toe in the water first with some self-study.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/24
| 1,626
| 7,035
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a funded PhD student in the U.K working on a practise based project within the field of design, although it is at heart a multidisciplinary project.
I am currently 2.5 years in to my 3.5 year programme (4 years if I take an optional 6 month placement)
To put it bluntly I am behind on my degree and I am coming up to my 2nd annual progression which is now 5/6 months over due and is my second and final attempt at submission. I’ve just had to apply for an extra 2 months.
My primary supervisor is now leaving the university and our relationship has broken down. I was told by my supervisor bluntly that “I will not get a PhD out of this” amongst other extremely negative things. They are the person who wrote the project brief to which I originally applied. They are a well respected individual in their field however and their opinion is a valid one but it was definitely coming from a place of anger.
I started just before the pandemic and then had a really difficult time with my mental health. I come from a world outside of academia and although I have an undergraduate bachelors I was co running a start up which gained me access to the degree without a masters. Trying to steer and save the company is partly what led to my mental breakdown and this current mess.
Currently I do not have any published papers or journal articles.
After the relationship broke down with my primary supervisor and he wasn’t willing to assist I took my issues to outside members of the faculty to seek assistance. They have been extremely supportive and encouraging.
The university has assigned my secondary supervisor to work with me for the next few months and also a replacement supervisor should I pass my AP2. My second supervisor has told me that it is going to be an uphill battle for the remainder of the project.
My options are thusly.
* Plough on and try to gain as much help during the process as possible to submit on time and then gain my PhD
* Drop to part time study after my resubmission and then extend the timeline to submit for as long as possible to get things back on track. I would have to gain additional employment to support myself and my family during this time
* Immediately seek alternative employment options with 2 months of funding to cover me during this period
Short to medium term I am not really seeking a career in a academia, especially after this experience, but would like it as a fallback for later life to move into lecturing or teaching. The degree would also help me gain employment in my field.
Has anyone experienced a situation like this, or had experience of a student having been in a similar situation to this and successfully completing?<issue_comment>username_1: As already outlined in a comment, this community likes to answer straight questions instead of giving general advise, but nevertheless I will try to provide some, assuming what you seek is an independent evaluation of your situation.
Facing this tough situation, I would suggest to focus on your motives behind getting a PhD in the first place. As you write you are aiming for an "academic career as a fallback", I can only say this is very unrealistic. An Academic career is usually only possible when you are dedicated and willing to give 100%. People usually see industry jobs as the fallback. I can only speculate for your particular situation because I don't know your field of research, but if this is your main motive, then staying in your PhD position might not be the best choice for you. And doing a PhD in part-time within 4 yours is already quite an optimistic aim.
If getting a PhD for later employment outside of academia is your main motivation, then this is of course a different story.
A broken relationship with a supervisor is always bad and independently of the reason for it to happen it is usually the student who suffers more from it.
Reading that you are well behind your initial work schedule might have something to do with your supervisor's attitude towards you.
On the other hand, statements like “You will not get a PhD out of this” are highly unprofessional and should never be made by a higher-up. So I speculate that your progress might also be due to bad supervision. Reading that other faculty members are very supportive towards you sounds like there is more to the story than your supervisor's opinion - and it sounds encouraging I would say.
It seems there is no reason to not try and pass the AP2, but keep in mind a PhD is not something that people do easily on the side. If you cannot raise the effort to wholeheartedly work on your PhD project then you are wasting your and your (new) supervisor's time.
As a side note: Minor and major setbacks happen for many, many PhD students. Things might not be as bad as you experience them. You already did the first and most important step and contacted other members of the university. Listen to them and trust their judgement on your individual case. If they encourage you to keep working on your PhD, do it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Among the alternatives you suggest, I am going to say go with
>
> Plough on and try to gain as much help during the process as possible to submit on time and then gain my PhD
>
>
>
You are in a bad situation, but there's a silver lining to it. I remember from my time as a PhD student, that a lot of time was spent waiting for others: collaborators to review papers, appointments to get trained in equipment in techniques, my committee to find dates where they could all meet at the same time (this was pre-Zoom times), etc. Everybody kept finding things I could do, revisions I could make, etc. since the deadline for finishing was so far away. And everybody kept delaying, delaying, delaying. I then developed the strategy of making artificial deadlines, e.g. "I need your revisions to my thesis chapter before date X, because of Y" (Y being out of my control, except for the fact that I added Y because it provided a deadline.) It worked.
Since you have real deadlines ahead of you, you can use this fact to motivate others to really help you, as opposed to just offering verbal support. For example, your interim advisor can then become your new advisor and give you a project they know will get you out quickly. That is, a quick project that goes just above the minimum acceptable threshold for what is an acceptable thesis. I know of two grad students who finished in about 4 months after switching labs, following this strategy. Since you are already thinking of leaving academia after the PhD, it won't matter that your project wasn't great.
Do not discount too much the idea of getting a job outside of academia. Graduate students waste a lot of time, and getting a job will limit the amount of time you have to do research, with the positive effect that you eliminate procrastination. Of course, ideally you would have lots of time, and not waste any of it. But with good time management, getting a part-time job can work well.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/05/24
| 890
| 4,260
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've read statements with meaning similar to this: "We received an extremely strong pool of applications this year, therefore..." in several of my decision letters from US grad schools in math this year. Is this a generic statement that is used while declining admission to soften the blow or is there something specific about this year that makes this statement true for many of the US grad schools? If there is, then what is the reason for that(covid?) and is there a reason to believe that admissions will get more or less competitive for the next academic year?<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately this is most probably a generic statement, which does not make it less true. Funding at almost all grad schools is usually short and not all candidates who would deserve funding very well receive it. I would doubt that covid positively influenced the quality of applicants.
Assuming you received a negative response, I would strongly advise to take the reviewers' comments seriously and then try again next year. Sometimes things work out even with only minimally edited applications.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is a generic statement used when declining admission to soften the blow.
That said, admissions tends to be fairly stochastic, so yes, admissions next year will be both more and less competitive. You can't know which will apply to each particular program, so the best way to optimize your odds of acceptance if you didn't make it in this application cycle are to 1) Apply broadly to programs that have a range of acceptance thresholds, and 2) Do whatever you can in the coming months to improve your application. Research opportunities and training relevant to your field, but also improving the content of your application itself by having people you trust who are familiar with graduate admissions (professors, ideally) review your application and suggest ways that you might present yourself optimally.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: #### This is a risk-management response used by all major corporate institutions
To augment the other answers here, let me give the realist (cynic?) view:
Because of the existence of various employment laws and anti-discrimination laws, modern HR departments are trained/conditioned to avoid giving applicants any substantive feedback on the strengths, weaknesses or quality of their application. They know that any information they give can be used against them in complaints and litigation, so they avoid giving any response of substance. This is essentially a risk-management method, which is frustrating for unsuccessful applicants but protective for the institution.
"We received an extremely strong pool of applications this year..." is a stock-response that has developed over the last several decades in virtually all major corporate firms, and modern corporatised universities are no different. This response allows the institution to give a reason for non-success without making any substantive statement in relation to the quality of your application or the relative merits of particular parts of different applications. The advantage from the institution's point of view (and disadvantage from the applicant's point of view) is that this gives you no information and your non-success remains a mystery. In particular, it allows the institution to retain complete latitude in its explanation for your non-success in the event of a subsequent complaint or legal case.
I have personally attempted to break through this wall on one occasion where I applied for an academic position and was unsuccessful. I usually wouldn't bother because I know the risk-management method at issue here, but in this particular case it was a position I was particularly well-aligned to and I really wanted to know what aspects of my application were letting me down that I could improve for the future. I went so far as to arrange a meeting with the contact person to get feedback on my application and it was like talking to a robot --- no matter how much I pressed for specifics or advice for future improvements, back came the stock non-answers that HR staff and managers are conditioned to give. Welcome to the corporatised future.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/24
| 454
| 1,949
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to pursue a PhD. The professor I am interested in collaborating with states on their website that applications from students outside their university should be directed to the university's graduate school.
Yet the next deadline is far too late for me, and in any case I would have wanted contact this professor before applying to the graduate school to know if they take students and what kind of projects they have.
>
> Should I contact the professor?
>
>
>
I was thinking about an email like [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/16724/169086).
>
> If yes, should I mention that I read the directive on the website and that I am contacting them to know if they take students and on what kind of projects?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: It is both appropriate and good practice to contact potential advisors before you apply to any given program. What the university website probably means is that the formal application should be sent to their admissions department at the graduate school, which is usually a different office than undergrad admissions.
So go ahead an contact the potential advisor, and if you decide you'd like to join their group, then submit a formal application to the university.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You can contact the professor to communicate interest in their lab and ask whether you could visit for an internship (if your own schedule permits this) or a virtual/in person lab visit to find out what kind of projects the members of the lab work on.
If an internship is possible, I think it would be the best option, because in that way both you and the professor will have the chance to test your interaction and communication, and you will spend your time until the next application round productive. And if everything runs smoothly and you apply to the school you will also have the strong accept from said professor while applying.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/05/25
| 3,763
| 15,692
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am considering spending a few years, perhaps two or three, teaching math in a high school between completing a mathematics PhD and moving on to my first postdoc. My ultimate goal is a professorship, and I'm particularly interested in teaching at the university level (still undecided on how important doing research is to me).
I've been told a few times that taking any sort of break or gap year makes it more difficult to continue on the standard track in academia afterwards. I'm well aware that getting a professorship in math is not an easy thing. I am hoping to get some more opinions on how much such a break could hurt my chances of getting back into academia, or how I could mitigate the adverse effects. Many thanks in advance.
This is all taking place in the US. I am currently an undergrad (planning far ahead).<issue_comment>username_1: It may sound absurd, but teaching is not a skill required for professorships.
To land an academic professorship position you may need to have some minimum bureaucratic criteria, i.e. "having been TA in 3 courses for at least 3 years" or the more general "the candidate must demonstrate teaching experience", but no one is expecting that you took years outside from research/PhD/postdoc positions to develop these skills. It is expected that you gained these teaching skills in parallel with your research experience.
So if your goal is to become a university professor, the way (especially in the US) is to publish as effectively as you can and get as many grants as possible (but the larger the better).
Being a high school teacher for some years is absolutely detrimental to both these two things (with this I do not mean that being a high school teacher is a bad thing, quite on the contrary, it is a very important role in our society, albeit not well rewarded nor recognized ... ).
Disclaimer: there may be some peculiar things related to mathematics. Please chip in with field specific suggestions.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The only way this makes sense to me is if, after high school (HS) teaching, you apply to primarily teaching college/university positions, these being EITHER long-term or permanent lecture/teaching-only positions at a university OR tenure-track positions with little to no research expected (excluding teaching related and service type activities, such as directing undergraduate capstone projects and the like) at a liberal arts type college whose mission is strongly focused on undergraduate education.
Teaching HS, and then looking for research post docs sounds really strange to me. Indeed, if you wish to do both, then a post doc immediately after your Ph.D. followed by HS teaching -- and the latter due to not getting an appropriate college/university position after your post doc -- makes a lot more sense to me, after which if you still want a college/university position, then apply to the types of college/university positions I mentioned in my first sentence.
For what it's worth, I've taught HS both before (1 full-time year of teaching HS) and after (3 full-time years of teaching HS) my Ph.D., and I've taught in a university (3 full-time years) before my 2nd HS job (this being after my Ph.D.) and in several colleges/universities after my 2nd HS job (total of 6 full-time years). However, I've never had a post doc, but I was told I was 2nd choice for a post doc in 1996, the only post doc I ever applied to (due to their relative exclusivity in math at the time, especially in my areas of interest).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'll give the contrarian opinion.
When people talk about the "standard track in academia" or "professorships", the implicit assumption is a research-based tenure track position where you will do basically what your PhD advisor did. The time where you could reasonably expect that after the PhD is long gone. Your chances of finishing the PhD are in the 30-50% range, your chances of getting a job as a professor is in the 10-30% range, and of those that end with a professorship, the percentage that end up in positions where research is their main job is abysmally low. I don't have a statistic, but my guess is that it's in the single digits. In other words, most PhDs with jobs in academia teach, teach, teach.
It is true that for some positions, say those that advertise a 50/50 teaching/research spit, they evaluate you on research and assume you can do the teaching. But anything below that split, which is the majority of jobs out there, we want to see that you can teach, that you know what you are getting into. Nobody wants to hire someone who is using the teaching position as a stepping stone and continue applying to research positions. Now, you might hear a different story from grad students and postdocs, and even professors who work at R1s (after all, it's the only thing they know), but I have been on dozens of faculty search committees and chaired a good portion of those committees, and I can tell you that we are looking for experienced teachers. Your story sounds great, that you want to teach at the university level, but want to cut your teeth at the HS level before that. Everything else being equal, I'd put you on my short list of people to hire.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Personal background
-------------------
I include the following in order to establish my *bona fides* with respect to both secondary and post-secondary education.
My bachelors degree is in mathematics, with a minor in secondary education. I was certified by the State of Nevada to teach mathematics at the middle school and high school levels (6th grade and above in the district I worked in). After completing my credential, I spent a couple of years going from one long-term substitute job to another—this was just after the housing crash in 2008, property values had dropped dramatically, and the district had no money to hire new teachers, so they instituted a hiring freeze and employed long-term subs to fill the gaps.
I eventually gave up on the idea of a teaching position with security of employment—both because it seemed like the district was not going to fill those positions, and because there were some aspects of the job that, it turns out, I really didn't like.
I went back to school and earned a masters, and then a PhD, in mathematics. I defended my thesis in the spring of 2020, which gives you some idea of what the academic job market looked like (COVID shut things down), and I had no desire to get on the postdoc treadmill (I am somewhat older than most of my grad school cohort, and needed long-term security). I applied for many tenure-track positions, as well as teaching positions (primarily at community colleges).
I am now a member of the faculty at a community college in northern Arizona and, having completed three years here, am on a "continuing contract" (e.g. I have "tenure", though the state legislature does not recognize the existence of such an institution).
Post PhD employment in academia
-------------------------------
Someone with a PhD has a number of options in academia, both in terms of short-term contract or "gig" work, and in terms of positions which promise more long-term security of employment. The general categories of employment which offer more long-term security are, broadly speaking, those listed below. Note that this is not exhasutive.
#### Professorships
As noted in the other answers, most professorships are research positions, rather than teaching positions. At R1 universities, the ladder faculty are typically required to teach only two or three courses in a term (sometimes even less), and are judged much more on their research output than on their teaching quality. Indeed, it is possible that teaching, while required, will not really be evaluated in any meaningful way, nor included in tenure or promotion.
I would expect that taking time off to teach will *hurt*, rather than help, one's prospects with respect to this kind of position. While a hiring committee will be happy to see evidence of teaching ability (and may require it, despite the fact that it is often not valued once one actually has the job), they are not going to want to hire someone who has not published in the last several years. The cost of not producing papers is likely to outweigh the benefits of obtaining more teaching experience.
At other types of institutions (e.g. small, private, liberal arts schools; bachelors-granting state institutions; etc.), there is still generally some expectation that those in tenure-track positions will conduct research and publish papers. Teaching experience in these positions is more valued, and teaching high school may help but, again, the lack of research output might hurt more.
If this is the kind of position you are looking for, I would recommend very much *against* taking time out of academia to teach high school.
#### Teaching positions
Many institutions (R1 and otherwise) have teaching positions, with titles like "professor of instruction" or "lecturer". These are *sometimes* ladder positions (i.e. tenured), but are often not. As such, the people who take these positions are often excluded from certain faculty functions, e.g. they may not have a voice in the faculty senate, or may have little representation in the administration of the department. Moreover, these positions often pay significantly less than research positions (though, for example, I have a good friend with a "professor of teaching" title who is considered ladder-faculty, and has all the rights and benefits of someone without the "of teaching").
On the other hand, all that is typically expected of such a position is teaching and, perhaps, curriculum development. Some in this kind of position is probably going to be teaching mostly lower-division classes (e.g. precalculus and calculus in a math department), but might sometimes have the opportunity to teach more advanced or focused material (e.g. real analysis or abstract algebra).
These kinds of positions used to be somewhat rare, or poorly compensated. However, my impression is that institutions are starting to hire more teaching faculty, and that there may be something of a market for folk who can fill these roles (though this is only my impression—I could be way off.
If this is the kind job you are looking for, taking time out of academia to teach high school *might* help. The lack of research output probably won't hurt.
#### Community college positions
Another option is to teach community college. The advantage is that these institutions focus almost entirely on teaching (we have a total faculty of around 80, probably around 40 on the non-vocational, non-remedial side of the house; collectively, the faculty have published three or four papers in the time that I have been here), and research output is not expected (or, often, even valued).
At many community colleges, the minimum requirement for a faculty position is a masters degree, rather than a PhD, and hiring committees will often see a PhD as being an *over qualification*. There is an impression among some folk that having a PhD indicates that one is too much of an ivory-tower egghead, and can't speak well to students. Having spent time teaching high school could be seen as an indication of commitment to teaching and might be viewed positively.
If you are looking for this kind of position, taking time out of academia to teach high school might be a good idea.
Certification
-------------
Something which others are not addressing, so far as I can tell, is the certification process. In the United States, it is *very* difficult to get a high school teaching position without a secondary education certification. Obtaining such a certification usually requires at least an extra year of coursework, plus a semester long internship (student teaching). There are very few public school positions which don't require this certification process, though it is sometimes possible to get a provisional certification (these are typically temporary, and expire if you do not complete the standard certification process within two or three years).
Private and charter schools can be a bit fast and loose with certification (since there is generally no requirement that teachers be certified), and there are some exceptional and/or specialized public schools which do not require certification, but certification is often still valued, meaning that an uncertified instructor may have a harder time finding a job.
If the plan is to teach high school for a period of time, one has to go into their education with that plan in mind. Start working towards certification *now*.
### Timing
Taking time off after completing a PhD in order to teach high school is very likely to be detrimental to the prospect of obtaining a ladder position in "mainstream" academia. Most of those positions require publication, and you *won't* be publishing while teaching high school (let's be real here; teaching high school is *hard*, and you aren't going to have time to research; there are probably some exceptions to this, but don't plan your life around be an exception).
Moreover, you are *young*, and just starting your career. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to plan so far into the future. In the next year, you might decide that you hate mathematics. Or you might decide that you hate teaching. Or that you hate research. Or you might fall in love and follow a partner where ever their career takes them, while you stay at home and raise the kids. It is good to have long term plans, but you should *always* be flexible, and recognize that your plans will very likely change.
For what it is worth, I tend to make plans with 2-, 5-, and 10-year horizons. I have never gotten to the end of a 2-year plan without major modification.
Having said all of that, the following path may be more advisable, in terms of not locking yourself out of either secondary teaching positions or mainstream academic positions.
* While still an undergraduate, start working towards secondary certification. If your institution has a certification program, talk to an advisor there, and see what they have to say. *Avoid* saying that consider high school teaching to be a temporary postion—focus on the idea that you are interested in teaching, and that you are interested in becoming a better teaching in furtherance of your long-term goal of an academic teaching position.
Note that this is very likely to add an extra year to your bachelors program (though it might not—just be prepared for that news).
* After completing your bachelors, teach high school (if you can). Really commit to that job—don't view it as a short-term gig, since people *will* pick up on short-timer-ism, and are not likely to be happy about it.
* *If*, after teaching high school for a while, you are convinced that you still want to pursue graduate school, apply. Graduate programs are typically much more open to students who have taken time off to do other things than are hiring committees looking for tenure-track faculty. Do note, however, that you might have more difficulty getting into an "elite" program, as they, too, will be focused on research.
* After completing a PhD (or masters, if you decide that a PhD isn't for you), you can make decisions about where to go next. Maybe you will *want* to go back to teaching high school!
The advantage of this plan of action is that (1) you get an understanding of the *theory* of instruction in addition to teaching experience, and (2) you still get to put that teaching experience on your CV when you start looking for academic positions.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/25
| 663
| 2,667
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first-year PhD student working alongside my supervisor on my second paper. So far, the process has been that I write a draft, he adds some comments/text where necessary, and we re-iterate. This is mostly fine, but I have noticed a pattern with his revisions: he self-cites a lot. These references are all somewhat relevant in context, but usually plain redundant. As an example, he might change "(Author et al. 2021)" to "(Author et al. 2021; Supervisor et al. 2022a,b, 2023)". In my first paper, my supervisor was listed as an author in over a third of the cited references. Out of those, I only added two.
I have some concerns about how this affects readability, but my biggest gripe is that it just looks bad. Maybe I'm overly dramatic, but I don't like how the paper I wrote to 95% is so plainly used as a way to increase his citation metrics. To the reader, it may come across as me parroting his research, which isn't the case. I have a good relationship with my supervisor, but I don't know how to bring this up in a non-accusatory way. Is this a problem I should be concerned with and, if so, what can I do?<issue_comment>username_1: You mention having a good relationship with your advisor. It's also safe to assume that he's doing this very much on purpose. It's annoying and it's wrong, but in an ethics scale of 0 to 10, 0 being totally ethical behavior and 10 faking data, this behavior is a 1 or a 2. I would let it go and not say anything. Your relationship with your advisor is most important here, and he's already shown to have a weak ego. In terms of your own reputation, most reasonable readers will understand that you are the subordinate in that relationship and with little power. When I read papers written by grad students, and with excessive citations to the lab/advisor, I just roll my eyes and not assume bad intent from the grad student author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> These references are all somewhat relevant in context, but usually plain redundant
>
>
>
If this is the case then I wouldn't worry about it too much --- citations that are relevant in context generally add value for the reader, even if they refer to many works by the same author and even if they build on top of other citations that cover the same area. In any case, if you decide to bring it up, I recommend you first assess which particular citations you think are too marginal to be warranted. It is reasonable to have a concern about the level of overall citation, but ultimately you will need to be able to point to a particular citation and say that you think it does not add value to the paper.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/25
| 727
| 2,820
|
<issue_start>username_0: When looking at the Journal of the London mathematical society in Mathscinet, I notice that the system displays two different journals under this name:
* Journal of the London Mathematical Society
and
* Journal of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series
Similarly, there are:
* Annals of Mathematics
and
* Annals of Mathematics. Second Series.
Sometimes there are even more series. There is for example
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. Third Series
What does this mean?<issue_comment>username_1: The January 1904 Proceedings was the first in the "Second Series". In it [on page 1](https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-1.1.1-s) was a
>
> ### Notice Concerning the Second Series of "Proceedings."
>
>
> THE following statement made by the President, Prof. <NAME>, at the meeting of the Society, held on June 11th, 1903, is reported in *Proceedings*, Vol. XXXV., pp. 460, 461:—
>
>
>
> >
> > "The first four volumes of *Proceedings* contain the papers of eight and a half years (January, 1865–June, 1873). Vols. V.–XXIX. correspond with the Sessions 1873–1898, one with each Session. Vols. XXX.–XXXV. are edited in accordance with the rule that the 'Volumes shall contain as nearly four hundred pages as may be found convenient, provided that each volume shall begin with the Report of Proceedings at a meeting, not necessarily an Annual General Meeting.' These volumes contain the records of proceedings at meetings, followed by the papers read at the meetings, and they also contain Appendices in which are Notes and Corrections and Obituary Notices of deceased members. The Council has decided that in future the records of proceedings at meetings and matter of the kind previously placed in Appendices shall be collected at the beginnings of volumes and shall have a different pagination from that of the papers, and that the records of proceedings at meetings shall be issued for a Session at a time in the earliest completed volume after the end of the Session. … The volumes are to contain as nearly five hundred pages as may be found convenient."
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
To summarize — the London Mathematical Society changed their rules governing the Proceedings, enough that they decided to clearly separate the Second Series from the original.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Some journals restart their volume numbering on occasion. This reset marks a start of a new "series". In order for a reference to point to a unique paper, it is then common to specify both series and volume numbers (though series can typically also be inferred from the publication year). In the case of Annals of Mathematics, a new series was started the first time the [journal moved universities](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/a/3258/69504).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/25
| 2,269
| 9,798
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working on a master's thesis in natural language processing wherein I analyse various tokenisation algorithms. These algorithms keep a large fixed-size set of recognised words (more specifically, word pieces) in storage, on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands. Along the way of my analysis, I noticed in one of the **non**-English tokenisers I am studying that it had quite a few word pieces which could only be completed to form English pornographic terms (let's say *ussy*, *inces*, *cking* and so on). The reason would be that they were trained over web corpora that contain such webpages.
There exist lists of swearwords online that contain some of these words. However, there are also a bunch of words that qualify as pornographic genres (*maid*, *POV*...) that aren't inherently pornographic, *were it not for the fact* that they are English words appearing online in a corpus that largely consists of a different language and that has the obviously pornographic words already present in it. As further evidence, the names of some porn websites also occur in the tokeniser's vocabulary.
I find myself in a strange and slightly blush-making predicament, now: not afraid of the internet, the only place I could actually find a comprehensive list of pornographic genres and website names was, well, on websites that also host videos of those genres. Since this one experiment fits very nicely with the rest of the thesis and I find the results significant and interesting, I would like to feature it.
Proper academic methodology requires that my experiments be reproducible... but how do I cite my sources in the most appropriate way possible? I have only found [one paper](https://aclanthology.org/E06-2001.pdf) that speaks on this topic, which obfuscates their sourcing:
>
> We filter out documents that have at least three types or ten tokens
> from a list of words highly used in pornography.
> The list was derived from the analysis of pornographic pages harvested in a previous crawl.
>
>
>
The lists of swearwords are all Node.js packages, so citing those is no problem. For the rest of the list, concretely, how does one cite `porn.com` in a scientific work, as appropriately as possible? Hyperlinking to it seems like a bad idea, and showing the URL to me seems "tasteless", although not showing the URL feels too handwavy and might raise even more eyebrows ("I use a list compiled from a variety of websites known to me").
---
This is at a Western-European university, so there won't be a moral inquisition if I include these results, but that doesn't mean it's not something to be nonchalant about. I want to respectful to the reader but academically precise.<issue_comment>username_1: The basic rule in research is that if you use it, you cite it.
So, if you use data taken from a site, you should, indeed, cite that site.
I'll guess, however, that the basic structure of your research (vulgar words) will lead people to expect that you didn't find them in "proper" places. And, those places/people that would object to such a citation will object to your work in any case, unless you avoid using those words, even if obfuscated, in publications.
And, you are using such sites not for pornographic purpose, but for analysis of language. Those sites aren't secret from the public in any case.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Citation is not the same thing as describing your methods. It sounds like you need to describe your research methods, not use citations. Those research methods may include listing URLs that you accessed to gather data.
You will want to make sure that your methods are not against the terms of service of any of those sites you used. Just because you are able to view certain content does not mean you can do whatever you want with it; some uses may fall under the concept of "fair use" or similar depending on what legal jurisdictions apply to you.
I'm not familiar with your field, but I've certainly seen popular press that makes reference to well-known pornographic websites, and they do not bother to obscure anything about their names. These are big businesses, and you'll find them referenced in newspapers and news television.
I think there is a certain level of advice that I want to give along the lines of "grow up and get over it". If your research is going to involve pornography, you're going to have to get a lot more comfortable with your research involving pornography. Urologists, gynecologists, and obstetricians can't get all giggly every time someone refers to genitals, *they work there*.
If you have a reasonable research question that involves pornographic language and you've used pornographic websites in work towards those questions, you need to be sufficiently explicit about it to allow someone else to recapitulate your work. That's the standard in research. Long lists might make more sense in an appendix or similar data supplement, but if you got your list of naughty words from "porn.stackexchange.com", and you think your work is rigorous enough to be published, then mentioning that your words came from "porn.stackexchange.com" should be just fine. You can try searching Google Scholar even for the specific websites you have in mind to see how others have referred to them.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Not claiming that this answer is canon or anything, but, if it were me, I would go for a solution that allows me to cite/link to the resources (for verification/reproducibility purposes), without necessarily including any of the vulgar content to the paper directly.
In other words, something along the lines of what you see in websites/tv shows when you try to enter and they warn you of potentially offensive content, e.g. something like this at the end of your bibliography:
>
> [28-35] Please note: some of the resources used for this research unavoidably contain content that may offend readers, therefore citations to these resources are provided as a separate bibliography section. Readers wishing to access this for verification and reproducibility purposes can do so here: <http://link.to.some.textfile.online>
>
>
>
(where 28-35 refers to the citation number in the text, and where you make sure to lump all the 'risky' citations under those numbers at the end of your bibliography)
Furthermore, you could probably consult the journal editor on this issue; they may have a policy on this already, or advise you of their preferred solution (e.g. a particular repository to upload your bibliography section to).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: #### There is no room for bashfulness in research
As the other answers here point out: (a) if you require information for your research that can only come from pornographic websites, then you are going to have to source that information from pornographic websites; and (b) if you source information from pornographic websites then yes, you either need to cite those websites or at least record their use as relevant sources in the information in your methodology. In some cases where you are sourcing large numbers of individual webpages you might just cite the general sites themselves and have supplementary materials setting out all the specific links, etc., for the data sources (as opposed to listing them in the bibliography). In any case, the rule is that your reader should be able to track your data back to its original source to verify the accuracy of your work.
Beyond the academic requirement to show your sources, good data science practice is to save your data/sources locally if possible (within reason) and have a good system for tracking your data back to its original source. This might even mean that you would be well advised to *save* some pornographic pages or search outcomes in your local data folders to ensure that you can demonstrate the source of the raw data (in cases those pages change or become unavailable later).
Here I think you have actually identified an opportunity for some useful additional research that could form a separate paper. The predicament you describe seems to be one that many researchers examining language models would run into, and if you are correct that there is a sparsity of existing research on pornographic terms then you have a golden opportunity to be the one to do that research and write a useful paper with supplementary materials giving a list of terms that other researchers could use in the same situation you are facing. If you were to do this then you would need to wade through some pornographic pages for the initial project, but you would save later researchers the trouble of doing this. It would also mean that your existing language-modelling paper (and any other language-model papers in the future) could directly cite your other paper on the analysis of pornographic terms without having to cite any pornographic websites itself.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Don't
=====
If I was doing a computer analysis of language from novels from the 1850s I would not include the list of titles in the paper itself. I would include it under supplemental material.
Since you are doing a crawl, I presume you are using a large number of websites. If there is a large list of websites then it is appropriate to not name them in the paper itself, but to just describe the websites, and include the list of domains or whatever in the supplementary material.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Why not? I work in econometrics. Causal inference, specifically. There are two quasi-experimental papers I've wanted to do that directly or indirectly involve PornHub. So long as your work is academic, then this shouldn't matter if the question matters. Moreover, we're all adults. So, it's okay.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/25
| 2,071
| 8,831
|
<issue_start>username_0: We are in a collaboration with another group, and our PIs have several papers and ongoing projects together (I am a 3rd year PhD student). They are experimental, we are computational. Around 1.5 years ago, they asked me to model something, which I did. Based on the model, several very cool and important observations were made, and since also I did not stop at only what I was asked for, but dug deeper, I managed to set up several interesting hypotheses. All of them are being tested, as they found them to be important questions.
On one of the first things we wrote a paper (I have shared co-authorship). I made all the figures of our models and several other panels, which were all to support or analyze these models. I spent days over a few weeks developing them (I am picky with colors, making sure they are accessible for colorblind people, things are aligned, fonts, etc.). Everybody said they were beautiful.
Fast forward, this paper came back from review. We agreed how we will rearrange some of the panels, move to supplementary or add. I again spent a day just to recolor things (one of the reviewers did not like one of the colors, and although exporting the figure in higher resolution would have solved the problem, we decided to make sure that they will like it, and changed it. But since these colors are used consistently across panels, almost all of them needed to be changed to accommodate this.) After the weekend, I needed to spend 2 days with preparing for a one-day retreat, so I could not immediately make everything.
After I came back, the collaborating PI asked me to meet with him. In the meeting, he showed me new figures - where he changed almost all of the panels that I have made (not just recolored, but remade from scratch using my models, except for one, that he also wants to alter). I did not confront him, as I felt very uncomfortable and quite upset and also realized that he does not have the slightest clue that this might be a problem. I needed to tell him however that the colors that he chose are almost indistinguishable from each other. His intention of remaking the panels was not discussed beforehand.
I told this to my PI, who immediately said that this is not okay, she knows that I have spent tons of time on this (this is a side project, but took away quite significant time from my main one). Later the day, she told me that she spoke with the other PI and told him that at least he should apologize. I met with him in the corridor later, but he did not mention anything about this, just asked me to send an editable format of the last of the former panels. I did not yet tell this to my PI, I do not want to tell on somebody else anymore.
I do not know what to do. We have several ongoing projects but I feel micromanaged and my time and effort disrespected. Honestly, I am very upset and feel like being used as a kind of a result producing machine. I also do not think that from a management point of view this is okay from a PI, especially if he is from another group, altering the representation of results that is coming from outside his group.
I would like to ask for suggestions. Should I just drop this matter, and at most only dump the future results on him and let him do whatever he wants? I can make more drastic measures e.g. dropping all the future collaborations but I would feel that I am overreacting. What do people think?
**EDIT**: His figures are not of better quality. He removed information from the figures (both scientific, and e.g. labels that help the reader to understand the figure by a glance). We needed to convince him not to use red-green on the same figures to highlight differences. For the results, that came from our lab, we need to fight for every label and legend to get them included and consistently colored, and his colors to be explained in the legend. He feels free to just simply neglect our comments and requests on the visualization on our own results (especially when I and not my supervisor is asking, but sometimes he also tries "not to hear hers).<issue_comment>username_1: I think the best figures should be used irrespective who made the final touch on them.
But on the other hand be careful because your collaborator may act like this because they are trying to steal your co-authorship and become a single first author.
As a background story as a pre-PhD, I was writting a paper with the results of my Master thesis, where I was sharing co-authorship with a PhD student who was VERY manipulative. Since he was far longer in the group than I was, he knew that before submission the professor asked who made which figure to take a final decision on the author list/order.
While preparing the manuscript we split the plots that had to be done half and half, since we were both co-first authors.
However during the revisions, he decided to move half of the plots I prepared to the appendix, and re-plot my plots in the main text.
Then he went on trying to change my co-authorship to a middle author position, claiming that he did all the plots in the main text alone. (Although these were the results of my thesis and I developed the method, the code etc.)
For the story he didn't succeed, but I had to change group to be able to fight him.
So to return to your story, be a little careful with that collaborator and try to find out why he decided to redo your work himself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Joint papers are just that: They are collaborations where, ultimately, everyone is responsible for everything. My take on this is that if I write some text, then it's fair game for every one of my co-authors to edit it. The same is true for figures, which just like text is just a means to convey information -- which is best done if *everyone* has input, and nobody is the "owner".
So, in my perspective, the failure in the collaboration is one of communication, not of management. You aren't the "owner" of the figures. You happen to be the one who has spent the most time on them, and so everyone who wants to edit them should probably talk to you about it (and explain their reasons), but just because you made them does not mean that you are best at doing so or have the experience how this kind of data is typically shown in your community -- things your PIs may well have more experience in.
So rather than spending your time feeling peeved and not wanting to talk to anyone about it, move your fingers to the keyboard and write an email to all the authors (or just the other PI) and explain your process in choosing colors, styles, etc., and how you think the figures should be changed in response to the reviewer comments. Then let others provide their perspective. It isn't a *collaboration* if you treat your figures as your property that nobody can touch -- of course, it isn't a collaboration either if the other PI just changes things, but give them a chance to explain themselves: you might actually learn something in the exchange.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: *she told me that she spoke with the other PI and told him that at least he should apologize. I met with him in the corridor later, but he did not mention anything about this*
The very next thing you must do is call a simultaneous meeting of all three of you. This meeting cannot end until you all agree on which figures will be used in the final publication.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: * There are both technical and emotional aspects to this question, I fully empathize with both.
* I agree with answers that you should push to better communicate all of the aspects of your work that minimize problems with publication, respond to reviewers' comments and are likely to help likelihood and speed of acceptance, as well as the readability aspects.
But in addition to all of that, [@WolfgangBangerth](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196663/69206)'s
>
> You aren't the "owner" of the figures.
>
>
>
Nicely isolates the tension between the [lauded and encouraged concept of ownership in a place of work](https://www.google.com/search?q=ownership+(workplace)) and just how much like sausage-making publishing collaborative research can be sometimes.
It also offers a way forward - the OP will no doubt be making many, many more figures (and of course *actual scientific contributions!*) in the future, **and if things don't end up the way they would like this time for one reason or another**, remembering that will allow the OP to find a way to [let it go](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_It_Go) and move on to the next challenge.
If that does happen, then consider the [Chinese finger trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_finger_trap). One can't move on to the next great things as long as one is focused on the tension at hand.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/26
| 1,298
| 5,360
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am very inexperienced in this process and could only find generic information.
I would like to submit a paper to a particular conference, and I am not sure if there are fees tied to the submission. If so, would the fees still be necessary even if the paper is rejected?
In particular, I am talking about [EMNLP 2023](https://2023.emnlp.org). There seems to be no submission site linked on their website, that is why I suspect that I need to register and buy conference tickets somewhere. Note that I have visited [EMNLP 2022](https://2022.emnlp.org) and paid for the membership fees.<issue_comment>username_1: I think the best figures should be used irrespective who made the final touch on them.
But on the other hand be careful because your collaborator may act like this because they are trying to steal your co-authorship and become a single first author.
As a background story as a pre-PhD, I was writting a paper with the results of my Master thesis, where I was sharing co-authorship with a PhD student who was VERY manipulative. Since he was far longer in the group than I was, he knew that before submission the professor asked who made which figure to take a final decision on the author list/order.
While preparing the manuscript we split the plots that had to be done half and half, since we were both co-first authors.
However during the revisions, he decided to move half of the plots I prepared to the appendix, and re-plot my plots in the main text.
Then he went on trying to change my co-authorship to a middle author position, claiming that he did all the plots in the main text alone. (Although these were the results of my thesis and I developed the method, the code etc.)
For the story he didn't succeed, but I had to change group to be able to fight him.
So to return to your story, be a little careful with that collaborator and try to find out why he decided to redo your work himself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Joint papers are just that: They are collaborations where, ultimately, everyone is responsible for everything. My take on this is that if I write some text, then it's fair game for every one of my co-authors to edit it. The same is true for figures, which just like text is just a means to convey information -- which is best done if *everyone* has input, and nobody is the "owner".
So, in my perspective, the failure in the collaboration is one of communication, not of management. You aren't the "owner" of the figures. You happen to be the one who has spent the most time on them, and so everyone who wants to edit them should probably talk to you about it (and explain their reasons), but just because you made them does not mean that you are best at doing so or have the experience how this kind of data is typically shown in your community -- things your PIs may well have more experience in.
So rather than spending your time feeling peeved and not wanting to talk to anyone about it, move your fingers to the keyboard and write an email to all the authors (or just the other PI) and explain your process in choosing colors, styles, etc., and how you think the figures should be changed in response to the reviewer comments. Then let others provide their perspective. It isn't a *collaboration* if you treat your figures as your property that nobody can touch -- of course, it isn't a collaboration either if the other PI just changes things, but give them a chance to explain themselves: you might actually learn something in the exchange.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: *she told me that she spoke with the other PI and told him that at least he should apologize. I met with him in the corridor later, but he did not mention anything about this*
The very next thing you must do is call a simultaneous meeting of all three of you. This meeting cannot end until you all agree on which figures will be used in the final publication.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: * There are both technical and emotional aspects to this question, I fully empathize with both.
* I agree with answers that you should push to better communicate all of the aspects of your work that minimize problems with publication, respond to reviewers' comments and are likely to help likelihood and speed of acceptance, as well as the readability aspects.
But in addition to all of that, [@WolfgangBangerth](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196663/69206)'s
>
> You aren't the "owner" of the figures.
>
>
>
Nicely isolates the tension between the [lauded and encouraged concept of ownership in a place of work](https://www.google.com/search?q=ownership+(workplace)) and just how much like sausage-making publishing collaborative research can be sometimes.
It also offers a way forward - the OP will no doubt be making many, many more figures (and of course *actual scientific contributions!*) in the future, **and if things don't end up the way they would like this time for one reason or another**, remembering that will allow the OP to find a way to [let it go](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_It_Go) and move on to the next challenge.
If that does happen, then consider the [Chinese finger trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_finger_trap). One can't move on to the next great things as long as one is focused on the tension at hand.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/26
| 1,036
| 4,128
|
<issue_start>username_0: We have submitted a marketing paper about consumer responses to service failure in online reviewers while reading. This is a second review round and the comments makes me upset.
1. We have reported age, education, race, occupation and gender. We didn't ask for marital status and income. The reviewer said we didn't provide enough details on the demographic.
2. We have research questions for the explore analysis and the reviewer didn't accept research question (RQ) and believe all studies should use hypotheses.
3. We have clarified that pilot and main study are two independent samples in the first review round and added notes towards it in the manuscript. The reviewer still asked us whether the pilot study will impact the participants in the main study (I don't understand this question).
4. The reviewer said we have to have a screening question to exclude those who have never experienced a service failure in their life. First, this study has already been done. Second, whether they experienced it or not does not matter for our study as we used scenarios to described the service failure rather than let them recall their own experience.
From my understanding, only the 4th one can be explained （but is still very unprofessional), all other comments are not reasonable.
Can we write an appeal to editor or what to do?<issue_comment>username_1: You can't appeal a review, as a review is not a decision. The reviewer only advises the editor, and the editor then makes a decision. Assuming this is not a rejection by the editor, then what you should do is make changes that are reasonable, and resubmit those changes. With that you add a response where you point by point clarify what changes you made and what pieces of advice you did not implement and why. Keep that very professional and very neutral. Do not use words like "idiotic". If the comments are indeed idiotic, then the editor does not need to be told. Instead it is much more powerful if the editor comes to that conclusion on its own.
A good rule of thumb is to remove all adjectives from your response letter. I make exceptions for some positive adjectives.
As a rule, even comments that make no sense are often useful: It indicates that a reader did not understand your paper. Moreover, you can often deduce what part of the paper was confusing. That is usually something you can fix.
If the review was accompanied by a rejection by the editor, then you could try to appeal. The chance of success is not good. So most often you will loose time during the appeal, and then have to submit somewhere else. So often it is quicker (less glacially slow) to directly submit somewhere else.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You may write to the editor, however, it might not serve any useful purpose.
With that said, what you need is to
1. Critically look at the reviewers' comments with open mind, no matter how 'idiotic' it might appear to you and your team.
2. Prepare a **rebuttal** addressing the issues raised. You need to be polite about this irrespective of your feelings or views, yet assertive enough to respectfully disagree where need be. Use sound judgement, literature and logical reasoning. Take emotions out.
At times, what we consider useless or *idiotic* might be trigger to recheck our fundamentals. I'm currently busy with a major revision. At first, some of the comments appears offish and *petty*. After letting it lie low for about a week, I've come back to it yesterday and continue my rebuttal. Though I don't agree with these comments (the parts sounding offish), I've now touch based with literature again. Where need be, I've adjusted, where not, I respectfully disagree.
Regarding **3** and **4**, it might be that the review is concerned about common method bias (CMB) or Common method variance (CMV).
A good literature is [Podsakoff & Organ, 1986](https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408)
You may also read up [Malhotra et al., 1986](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20110660) and
[Rodríguez-Ardura & Meseguer-Artola, 2020](http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762020000200101)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/26
| 1,127
| 4,481
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am new to the research domain and recently submitted a survey paper to ACM Computing Survey Journal (CSUR). After the first review, one reviewer commented,
>
> Taxonomy is missing, and ACM CSUR paper must include a taxonomy.
>
>
>
But I have no idea what they mention as an ACM CSUR taxonomy. Looking forward to some support on this.<issue_comment>username_1: This remark about taxonomy is ambiguous. My gut feeling is that the reviewer feels that a CSUR should review the field, which is more than a mere listing of previous work but includes an ordering, i.e. a taxonomy. This is different from classifying the paper itself.
It's like a taxonomy in zoology: There are many animals, but they naturally fall into groups such as mammals, and within mammals canines and felines and then into closely related species and then into species. For example, if you make a survey articles on recent developments of databases, you would need to distinguish between relational and non-relational databases. The latter, sometimes called NoSql databases would fall into (at least) key-value stores, columnar databases, and graph databases. The former would fall into main memory and disk/storage based databases. Your taxonomy should be much better than what I just wrote. For example, object oriented databases and object relational databases are lacking.
The taxonomy should allow the reader to easily place contributions that you did not talk about with contributions that you did talk about. It should allow the reader to easily follow the flow of development. In my example, I could have written a database paper on how to make an in-memory cloud-based database durable. Your taxonomy should allow a reader to immediately identify the key ideas and see how they would work for a graph database.
If my understanding of taxonomy is correct, then it explains the reviewers comment that a surveys article needs a taxonomy. This remark then becomes a rather devastating criticism that needs to be addressed (or refuted).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> one reviewer commented,
> Taxonomy is missing, and ACM CSUR paper must include a taxonomy.
>
>
>
What is the ACM taxonomy?
These two papers, [(1)](http://epia2009.web.ua.pt/onlineEdition/553.pdf) and [(2)](https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1463788.1463807), equate ***ACM CCS*** to ***ACM taxonomy***: They are used interchangeably.
Going by the [ACM CSUR authors guide](https://dl.acm.org/journal/csur/author-guidelines) (see extract below), the [ACM Computing Classification System (CCS)](https://www.acm.org/publications/class-2012) is mandatory.
>
>
> >
> > Content Indicators
> >
> > Three types of content indicators must be assigned: (1) general terms, (2) subject descriptors, and (3) keywords and phrases. The first two items are selected from the 2012 ACM Computing Classification Scheme. Select as many of these as may be applicable.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
I know from experience dealing with ACM publications that it is expected and compulsory.
Purpose: [ACM CCS/taxonomy](https://dl.acm.org/journal/csur/author-guidelines#ccs)
* classify manuscript
* provide proper indexing and retrieval information from the CCS
* provides readers with quick content reference, facilitating the search for related literature
* searches in ACM's Digital Library and on other online resources.
Without insight to your manuscript or section of the reviewers comment, it's difficult to say authoritatively in your instance.
The reviewer assumed it's common knowledge for people in computing field used to ACM.
For certainty, you might consider approaching the editor for guidance, just as in [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/130032/taxonomy-in-a-review-paper).
---
[Edit1] clarify CCS and taxonomy
[Edit2]
ACM CCS/Taxonomy are used to classify papers published in ACM journals like the CSUR. They are also engaged, where need be, within a paper (as part of research work): this isn't compulsory.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Please have a look at the papers in the journal and also IEEE Communications Tutorials and Surveys. You will see that all papers have many mind maps (diagrams, tables, etc) to categorize research topics, problems, tools, etc.
All surveys MUST have such mind maps because they are the most valuable parts of any survey. Otherwise, you have an annotated bibliography that almost anyone can write.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/26
| 2,628
| 11,039
|
<issue_start>username_0: After experiencing serious academic burnout, personal health conditions, and some family situations, I think I am not able to pass my overall assessment for my master's degree. I think I'm basically failed (the actual final result won't be available until July).
A bit of background about myself, I am currently approaching the end of a 9-month master's degree in physics at a very top UK university. Before this, I obtained a dual degree in physics and mathematics at a US university with very good overall grades (3.95/4.00). I also have 3 academic papers with my undergraduate professor.
I actually did well in some modules I took in my master's course. An additional reason for my poor overall performance in the current program is I'm taking modules mainly in a new area of physics that is significantly different from my undergraduate study and research, which really takes extra time and effort.
I'm very frustrated with my current situation. I studied and worked really hard, but the result is not rewarding at all. I'm pretty sure I want to be in academia in the future and study for a Ph.D. in physics because I'm passionate about what I've been learning and doing, after all. My biggest concern is if I'm trying to reach out to potential supervisors or someone in academia and seek collaborations, my current experience will make them reluctant to work with me. I will definitely move on from my failure, but how this bad experience will affect my future career in academia, and how can I make this impact as small as possible?
Thanks for the help!<issue_comment>username_1: [Perhaps as much of a comment than an answer, given that the post does not really contain much of a question that can be answered in a concise way...]
Well, yes, you are right: This will reflect poorly on you to whoever you apply to next. But that's not the part I'd be concerned about. If you found yourself burned-out from the Master's experience, what makes you confident that any PhD program you want to go through will yield a different experience? What I don't see from the post is some serious introspection about what made this particular situation a poor match for you, and how any other program would result in a better situation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that you need to do some soul-searching to determine *why* you struggled. You will not succeed in a PhD without answering this for yourself. If there are external factors at play, you need to learn to manage them. If you have academic or research weaknesses, they need to be addressed.
Practically though, failing your overall assessment will reflect poorly on you. The only real way to overcome failure is to show that it not indicative of your true ability. I do not subscribe to the idea that certain people inherently can't handle challenging advanced academics. But you should decide if you *want* to continue down this path because it might be harder for you than others. If you choose to proceed, I have some advice:
1. **Identify why you are struggling**. This is the most important step. You need to address whatever is causing you trouble. You have to be honest with yourself here.
2. Find a way to show future programs/advisors that your trouble was an anomaly. How you do this is situation dependent. You may take more classes, extend your degree, or find a research job that allows you to form relationships with potential mentors. Ideally, you should target your weak areas and strengthen them.
3. Don't fixate on failure. Acknowledge it if brought up, but do not draw attention to it. And show evidence that you have moved past it. Steps 1 and 2 will allow you to do this effectively.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: My first post here so pls be kind and don't take things too literally.
I am a 6th year post doc in Neurobiology at Cambridge, UK.
All of these words are my reflections - I am not wearing any special truth-spectacles. Choose to take a moral high ground. I find that explaing how to game the system is despicable and a reason to why science is as in-efficient as it *de facto* in these times.
**Here and now**
First things first, Don't worry about things that is currently out of your hands. See what the result is, and meanwhile talk to colleagues about your feelings and worries. They will be the type of people who gets you through this underappreciated type of work.
Still, I absolutely get your position and the accompying feelings. I am in 6th year as a post doc and feel im about to "fail" yet again ;)
Its natural to get scared or emotional about things that we are passionate about, it's a good sign! But do not let that fear control you. Planning ahead in this state is usually pointless. And if you do plan, use a best/worst-scenario type approach - find the 'lagom' middle scenario.
**Failings? Control, authoritism and independent thought**
It is essential to define what YOU mean with "about to fail". Is this your view? Does you supervisor, mentor, colleagues also agree you are "about to fail"? Find the likely scenario an come up with some alternativ career paths. Having a backup plan, regardless if that is a similar field or becoming a gardener. Plans do not have to be used. Backup plans ensure that you don't feel your life depends on this one result.
Most of us instinctively feel that if we don't ace things we are failed. (evo-theory would say its because our fear is evolutionary coupled to a very real risk of death).
These feelings seem to be particularly strong in those who tend to be hard on themselves, often people who ace:d undergraduate education. If you had to pay for uni, and relatives stepped in. Talk to them about your fears, as on some level you will be doing this for them.
"one who is in debt, is not free".
Being judged right or wrong by others is what teachers do in school, or if you have a contractual commercial boss. Not in science. In science you have mentors, collaborators and colleagues,- not bosses (despite this culture always tried to nestle it's ugly face in).
This fact has been of fundamentally importance to me. It puts me in control and is the fundament of independence and independent thought.
No one can order me what, when and how to work. It's all up to me.
If not I wouldve blamed others and left bitter and disillusioned. Now I fight on!
*Naturally tho, clever people take advice from senior or trusted colleagues - but not before thinking it through and making the decision themselves.*
**What is Science? Novelty? Publications, goal or tool?**
IMO Science naturally has a flat hierarchy. Either you establish something or you don't. Seniors do not sit on any absolute knowledge or skills.
If a professor has assumptions you can't get on board with, their whole argument hurts and there is no meaningful collaboration.
Therefore a professors word does not weigh heavier than a students (as long as thorough discussion takes place). This critically depends on both parties humbleness and asking yourself what you do know and what you don't.
As such, I if you think science is a competition you are missing the point.
Competition is a technique some people use to motivate themselves. There are better ways where if you "loose" you are not a looser. Say - actual interest in finding something out. Then negative results are just more data.
Neither is it about being first. Those are merely the people who did a large contribution and as a reward got an entire ecosystem attached to their name that we then remeber. Similar to how we remeber pharaohs but not the people building the pyramids.
Its not even about curing a particular disease or inventing a useful tool. Those are all potential products from doing Science. Can't and shan't be a goal.
Science is discovery, exploration and arguably the only way we can know anything in this world. First about convincing yourself. Then deciding if it is worth to communicate to peers who can independently confirm or disagree.
Instead of togheter discovering patterns in nature and increasing our understanding of the world around us. It is a common misunderstanding that science is about getting publishable results or ones theory being correct.
Publications is what we (unfortunately) are quantified by in lack of other organizational principles - but don't mix up publishing with doing science - something published is not automatically true. (requires a lot substantial repeated confirmation).
Science is not an umbrella term defined by what scientist choose to occupy their days with. Many people have long CVs or are good at writing self-similar grant applications (useful for a scientist) . But they are means to the end of doing science not the science in themselves. (chatgpt will tear these people a new one:)
**Happy go lucky**.
Like everything in life we usually don't (really) understand what we are getting ourselves into beforehand. Who was not surprised at all what their new job actually showed to be? What young adult actually grasps what scientific work is before experiencing it?
Remember. You learn different things from different projects, different PIs. It's about getting the collection of experience you require. Therefore personal advice like this forum is always better than (commercial) "10 common mistakes PhDs do"-sites.
With the shitty situation for (most) academics, many understandably do not want to sacrifice their entire lifes and leave.
I usually turn this around in my head to:
"Whoever leaves the room last gets to be Professor".
**Final advice** (slightly lower moral highground:)
I would recommend you already now start to contact people who are doing science. Remeber you are the 'essentially-free' workhorse that they have the opportunity to hire/take under their wing. Its a relationship.
Focus on making contact with scientists you like rather than aiming for a PhD in a specific field or university.
Any contact point that is personal is preferable to "open" applications.
You avoid competing with the rest of the world in the sport if writing CVs and doing official interviews.
Very often open positions are already earmarked anyway.
Potential collaborators (pi, proff, postdoc) that are appealing to You are all good people to email. Those who don't answer don't, re formulate and move on. They won't even register you exist.
However WHEN you find a good match, a position might very well materialize out of thinn air. And if they truly want you there is no problem in asking them where to apply for money.
Offering (for them free) summer internships or course-projects there are as many ways as there are Universities.
Hope some of this may penetrate through your skull, deep into your brain and there lodge itself to fester. :)
Burnout is basically part of today's academic education. Unfortunately. Everyone end up with it sooner or later. The earlier you can find a way that works for you instead of trying to fit the mold, I the better.
Sincerely, Staffan
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/05/27
| 1,051
| 4,380
|
<issue_start>username_0: Inspired by [<NAME>'s answer here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196642/) and [Interpreting the statement "We received an extremely strong pool of applications this year." in US grad school decision letters](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/196613/interpreting-the-statement-we-received-an-extremely-strong-pool-of-applications)
If I apply for a postdoc (or tenure-track, etc.) position, fail to get the position, and am told I was the 2nd-choice candidate, can I reasonably assume that I am indeed the second choice, or is that something departments do to soften the blow of getting declined?<issue_comment>username_1: Lying to a candidate is in no way helpful to them, so telling them "to soften the blow" is totally misguided.
You tell them they came second if they actually did, and if you had been willing to hire them if the first candidate hadn't been there, to keep a possibility open to hire them if (a) the first candidate rejects the offer, or (b) you suddenly get more budget and can hire two people, or (c) you want to pass their name on to someone else who is hiring.
And you tell them they were good enough to get the job, but one (or two) people were better, if that is actually the case.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Competent people involved in faculty hiring in some official capacity (say as department chair or a member of the hiring committee) will never outright lie to a job candidate, even for well-intentioned reasons. If they want to hide certain awkward truths they will instead use vague or diplomatic language. It is then up to job candidates to interpret what the vague language means (there are many questions on this site giving examples of this). But the general rule is that such vague statements usually do not contain more information than their literal meaning - they are crafted precisely to have that quality. So yes, if you are told that you were the second-ranked candidate, I’d say there is a high chance that that factual statement is in fact true.
Two caveats to keep in mind are:
1. It’s still not a guarantee that the statement is correct. There are incompetent people who deviate from normally advisable ways of doing things, so it’s certainly possible that a chair will lie to a candidate, and probably happens every once in a while. (This would probably be correlated with other weird or alarming things the candidate might have noticed about the chair’s behavior.)
2. If the candidate heard that they were the second-ranked candidate not through a formal channel but through some informal gossip, say through a friend on the faculty who isn’t an administrator or on tbe hiring committee, the possibility for lying (especially a “white lie” told out of a misguided desire to protect someone’s feelings) seems more likely. Telling such a lie is still a stupid thing to do in my opinion, and still creates many possibilities for real harm as well as legal liability for the university, but professors do not always have common sense about such things, especially when they are not themselves administrators and are not sensitive to some of the legal issues related to hiring.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: For a tenure track candidate for a position at a large university that uses typical recruiting practices, if you haven't been invited for an interview, you're probably not the second choice, even if you were told you were. This probably includes distance interviews these days.
Beyond that, it can be really tough to say.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As other people have said, they should definitely not lie about something like this.
However, as far as I know it is not normal to tell someone they were second choice in the first place. So this is an unusual situation and I wouldn't be too confident that the usual norms apply.
The exception would be if there is a good reason for giving out this information. For example, I have heard of people being told "you are the second choice, and the first choice has not yet decided whether to accept". This seems like helpful information to give (if true), and there is no good reason to lie about it, so I would be inclined to take it at face value. The probability of subsequently being offered the position is perhaps not high, but I have heard of it happening.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/27
| 1,013
| 4,475
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received peer reviewers comments on a paper I submitted to a reputed journal. After consideration, I have modified my arguments to be compliant with these reviewer comments. When I submitted these corrected arguments, the journal has rejected my work without supplying any reason at all in the rejection notice. I appealed this decision making it clear that my arguments were now in compliance with reviewer comments and seeking a reason that my work was rejected. I am now pursuing the matter with [COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Publication_Ethics).
The mechanics of the situation are quite complicated... This is the simplest way I can explain it. My first submission consisted of the following steps:
1. Suppose there exists an overarching, immutable statement S that we accept to be true.
2. Consider also some statement R that is widely accepted to be true.
3. Now I present independent arguments to claim that statement E is true. This claim remains uncontested by the editor.
4. If E is true I invoke S to claim that F must also be true.
5. Further, I assert that if F is true, then R conflicts with S.
6. Since two truths cannot contradict each other and since S supersedes R in the ordo cognoscendi, I claim we must reject R over S.
After 17 attempts of submitting the same arguments to the same journal and being rejected without any reason supplied, I finally approached COPE. On insistence from COPE, the editor justified their rejections claiming that statement F cannot possibly be true. Instead they claimed statement F is false, therefore my assertion that R conflicts with S must also be false. Now comes the matter of accountability and being bound to their comments. I believe that the editor is now bound to the consequences of statement F being false. Therefore, in my next submission,
7. I invoked statement S to generalise statement E into statement G. This claim remains uncontested.
8. I then invoked statement S to claim that if statement G is true and statement F (as asserted by the editor) is false then R still conflicts with S.
The editor is probably uncomfortable with this argument because statement R is widely accepted to be true. They continue to reject my argument without supplying any reason. In fact statement R is usually written as,
$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$
Why this odd strategy on my part? Believe me, I could see no other way to do it. Setting aside this particular case, I wish to address the general matter of accountability in scholarly peer review ask the question, "Are editors bound to the theoretical and experimental outcomes of the comments they supply?"<issue_comment>username_1: No, they are not. Editors are pretty much free to accept or reject a paper for whatever reason they want. You could argue with them, but if you can't convince them, that's that.
You'll likely receive a "sorry, but we can't do anything / it's out of our scope" response from COPE for this reason.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: No. As frustrating as the process may be, accepting or rejecting a paper is at the discretion of the editor. No journal is obligated to accept any particular paper. And, ultimately, reviews are simply suggestions. Making the requested changes to a paper does not guarantee acceptance - in the same way that declining to make certain changes does not guarantee rejection. It is the editor's job to make a final decision based on a variety of factors.
Does a rejection after revisions indicate that there was never a chance for acceptance? Probably not. It is unlikely that the editor just wanted to waste your time. It is for your benefit that you are given a chance to respond to reviewers. But at the end of the day the editor is not bound to reviewer comments. There is no point speculating on reasons for rejection here, there are too many variables.
My personal thoughts as an (admittedly new) editor - there are many reasons why a paper might be rejected and none of them are personal. Editors are usually busy and are not obligated to provide detailed reasons for rejection. You can appeal (as you are doing) or ask for feedback but you're probably better off just submitting elsewhere. COPE is unlikely to be of any help. Your paper is now, presumably, improved as a result of the reviewers' comments. Maybe you will have better luck at the next journal.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/05/27
| 1,781
| 7,489
|
<issue_start>username_0: A month ago I submitted a piece of coursework which still hasn't been marked. When I wrote it for some sections, I made notes with ChatGPT, which I was supposed to rewrite in my own words, but I forgot to. Just yesterday I reread through it and I realized I plagiarized.
The essay is 3k words long, and 300 words are from ChatGPT.
I want to email my lecturer and explain this to them. Because the coursework hasn't been marked yet, I want to ask if they can mark me down by ignoring all plagiarized sections. I also want to apologize to them for wasting their time and being dishonest about my work. What should I do?
I don't know if those sections will necessarily be flagged as plagiarized, but I want to avoid that happening. I'm not here to ask for sympathy nor scorn; I'm already very ashamed of myself.<issue_comment>username_1: Although you seem to have shown some remorse for your actions, simply owning up to a dishonest act doesn't really give you the right to request how your assignment should be marked.
Admitting fault to the lecturer would be the ethically correct thing to do, but how this act is punished is up to the lecturer. If you admit fault and appologize you might earn a lighter sentence than otherwise, but again, that is for someone else to decide.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Paraphrasing doesn't absolve you from plagiarism. You can plagiarize using none of the original words. Even if you had re written "in your own words" you would still be plagiarizing.
If you weren't supposed to use something like chatGPT but did, then you have a violation already. If you paraphrased and submitted you would have two violations.
You can ask for mercy but you have things to learn, I'm afraid.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Your writing style is relatively distinctive. I've spotted a couple of common grammatical errors (a missed space after a full stop, for example) and some variations in capitalisation (chatgpt vs. ChatGPT). If your lecturer is paying reasonable attention to your writing rather than just skimming it for keywords then they'll almost certainly notice that the bot-written section is not your own writing.
Most universities are also using plagiarism detection software precisely to root out people who use bots and internet sources to get around having to do the work themselves.
Given **the high likelihood that you'll be detected**, my advice is to get ahead of this by rewriting that section comprehensively (e.g. not just by paraphrasing the bot-written text) and then submit the entire thing again with a sincere apology explaining that you've accidentally copied some text in from a source that you were reading online. There's a solid chance that your lecturer will simply take the old version of the essay and throw it in the bin.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: First things first, I appreciate your honesty and willingness to take responsibility for your mistake.
There is no denying that you have made a mistake and you have been sitting on it for a month. The most advisable course of action is to acknowledge it before the assignment gets marked, which will help you get ahead of the situation. In the perception of your lecturer, your admission of guilt will be interpreted in one of two contexts: in relation to the plagiarized sections (implicating 300 words / 10% of the assignments) or in relation to the plagiarizer (implicating your entire assignment). There is no telling which way his/her/their judgment will lean.
No matter what, my advice will be not to ask or propose how you think the assignment should get marked for the following reasons:
1. It may appear as hubris on your part. Any marker who is aware that they have to examine a dishonest work will most likely NOT appreciate being instructed by the guilty party how to perform their duty and how many marks to allocate. If you attempt to influence your marker into giving you less penalty, you will seem like an entitled person. Therefore, you should allow your lecturer to determine how they want to deal with your assignment.
2. You should consider yourself very fortunate if the lecturer merely penalizes your entire assignment (by assigning it a 0) and refrains from taking any further administrative action(s). If your lecturer marks very generously by penalizing you only for 10% of the plagiarized assignment, I think you should express your gratitude to your lecturer at the end of the semester and pledge to never repeat your mistake. The latter scenario is highly improbable, given that the assignments are randomly subjected to double-checks for quality control at the end of the semester in most of the prestigious institutions and the instructors are reluctant to incur the responsibility of erroneous judgments by showing undue leniency to the students.
3. It is generally accepted that, within any academic system, voluntary acknowledgment of plagiarism can mitigate the severity of the penalty, but the assessor (in this case, the marker) retains the discretion to impose a harsher punishment. So, I think you should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
4. Sometimes, the markers are legally compelled to report cases of plagiarism to a higher authority. It will considerably help your case if you disclose first, admit your error, and save some time and effort for the marker. But it will inflict more damage than benefit if your admission is accompanied by an unwarranted request to grant you partial marks for the satisfactory sections of the assignments.
Having said that, when it comes to ChatGPT and other generative models, we should have a separate discussion. Most of my students who consulted ChatGPT typically regarded it as a semi-conscience being, a consultant who they thought searched the internet and formulated its own decision by gathering search knowledge. Most students thought that ChatGPT was a purely generative model that can be distinctly driven by students' individual prompts (the process they 'proudly' denoted as their own "creative directions") and therefore its outputs can be construed as the students' own thoughts. A lot of prestigious schools even embraced the students' use of ChatGPT, in its early stages, for helping them out with their assignments. But as it turned out that they were completely wrong and ChatGPT merely stitched some information (verbatim) from the internet in a fluent manner, which can NOT be interpreted as the user's own thought and will be regarded as plagiarism. If you belong to this misguided cluster, you should present your case to your lecturer accordingly and indicate that you had an impeccable record up to this point (I am hoping so judging by how ashamed you are for this), which should act in your favor.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Imagine that you commit a crime; not a hanging offense or felony, but at least a misdemeanor. You intended to commit the act. Should you now confess? To me, your scenario seems much the same as this scenario.
If you intend a life of crime, confessing is clearly a foolish thing to do. If you do not intend a life of crime, and regret the error of having committed the crime, what good comes of confession. I find it difficult to see how the obvious ***public interest in punishing crimes***, which here equates to ***university interest*** in punishing either plagiarism or the use of ChatGPT, is advanced by your confession. Clearly others disagree.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/27
| 2,632
| 9,292
|
<issue_start>username_0: A piece of wisdom I have heard several times is that an academic should change their direction of research roughly every seven years. This change needs not be radical but clearly more than what you naturally do within those seven years.
Does anybody have a reliable source for this rule of thumb? I heard this being attributed to Feynman, but neither with nor without his name can I find something on the Internet. I may have gotten the details of the quote wrong of course (e.g., seven instead of eight years).
Please mind that this is not about whether this advice is actually valid or why it may be.<issue_comment>username_1: I think I found it! [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamming), mathematician and Turing Award recipient said it in a 1986 seminar at Bell Labs. The talk was titled "You and Your Research", and a transcript is available [here](https://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/YouAndYourResearch.pdf). The most relevant part is in the Q&A session after the main talk:
>
> *Question:* You mentioned the problem of the Nobel Prize and the subsequent notoriety of what was done to
> some of the careers. Isn't that kind of a much more broad problem of fame? What can one do?
>
>
> *Hamming:* Some things you could do are the following. Somewhere around every seven years make a significant, if not complete, shift in your field. Thus, I shifted from numerical analysis, to hardware, to software, and so on, periodically, because you tend to use up your ideas. When you go to a new field, you have to start over as a baby. You are no longer the big mukity muk and you can start back there and you can start planting those acorns which will become the giant oaks. Shannon, I believe, ruined himself. In fact when he left Bell Labs, I said, "That's the end of Shannon's scientific career." I received a lot of flak from my friends who said that Shannon was just as smart as ever. I said, "Yes, he'll be just as smart, but that's the end of his scientific career," and I truly believe it was.
>
>
> You have to change. You get tired after a while; you use up your originality in one field. You need to get
> something nearby. I'm not saying that you shift from music to theoretical physics to English literature; I mean within your field you should shift areas so that you don't go stale. You couldn't get away with forcing a change every seven years, but if you could, I would require a condition for doing research, being that you *will* change your field of research every seven years with a reasonable definition of what it means, or at the end of 10 years, management has the right to compel you to change. I would insist on a change because I'm serious. What happens to the old fellows is that they get a technique going; they keep on using it. They were marching in that direction which was right then, but the world changes. There's the new direction; but the old fellows are still marching in their former direction.
>
>
> You need to get into a new field to get new viewpoints, and *before* you use up all the old ones. You can do
> something about this, but it takes effort and energy. It takes courage to say, "Yes, I will give up my great reputation." For example, when error correcting codes were well launched, having these theories, I said,
> "Hamming, you are going to quit reading papers in the field; you are going to ignore it completely; you are
> going to try and do something else other than coast on that." I deliberately refused to go on in that field. I wouldn't even read papers to try to force myself to have a chance to do something else. I managed myself, which is what I'm preaching in this whole talk. Knowing many of my own faults, I manage myself. I have a lot of faults, so I've got a lot of problems, i.e. a lot of possibilities of management.
>
>
>
The Shannon referred to in the quote would be [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon), who is often called "the father of information theory". Shannon laid the foundations for this discipline while at Bell Labs, and in his talk Hamming suggests that Shannon would not continue to "plant acorns" afterwards.
---
While it isn't really phrased as a recommendation for others, it is perhaps also worth noting that
[Donald Cram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Cram) (1987 Nobel laureate in chemistry) has said
>
> To retain my fascination with chemistry, I have had to change my research fields about every 10 years.
>
>
>
This quote can be found in <NAME> (2003) *Candid Science III: More Conversations with Famous Chemists*. Imperial College Press, p. 192.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am sure many scholars came up with this piece of advice. This is an excerpt from [an interview](http://faddeev.com/%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3-%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D1%80/) with [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Faddeev) published in the newspaper of Saint Petersburg State University, № 5 (3791), 30.03.2009:
>
> I recall, many told me: "Why did you abandon this golden mine? You have just started it, and it's high time to develop it. Keep on digging..." I am, however, dead set against digging gold mines. And this is what I have preached to my disciples: if you have written five works on a certain topic -- leave it and seek another topic. It is important to switch topics... As a result of this, my disciples and I have a broad variety of directions of research.
>
>
>
However, in academic folklore this piece of advice of his was known long before that. I learned about this rule of Faddeev, through word of mouth, back in my undergraduate years in Saint Petersburg, which was in the early 1980s.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Halmos) in his biography *I Want to Be a Mathematician* (1985) raised that point several times, however he gave himself only five years. Here are some excerpts:
>
> I had a theory, first subconscious and later deliberate, that the way to stay young is to change fields often. I never did become an algebraist, but I did change from measure theory (under which I mean to include probability and ergodic theory) to Hilbert space, then to algebraic logic, and then back to Hilbert space, with some dabbling with topological groups and statistics sprinkled in. After about thirty years, around 1968, I realized that I wasn't likely to be able to change again, and, at about the same time, I started writing more expository papers (such as "Ten problems in Hilbert space") and sermons (such as "How to write mathematics").
>
>
>
>
> In the late 1940's I began to act on one of my beliefs: to stay young, you have to change fields every five years. Looking back on it I can now see a couple of aspects of that glib commandment that weren't always obvious. One; I didn't first discover it and then act on it, but, instead, noting that I did in fact seem to change directions every so often, I made a virtue out of a fact and formulated it as a piece of wisdom. Two: it works. A creative thinker is alive only so long as he grows; you have to keep learning new things to understand the old. You don't really have to change fields—but you must stoke the furnace, branch out, make a strenuous effort to keep from being locked in.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The physicist [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Uhlenbeck) was another famous scientist known for repeating a maxim like this, although I don't know whether he every specified how long one should pursue an area of research before changing to something else. Uhlenbeck's student <NAME> described his advisor's view in the introduction to Putterman's book, [*Superfluid Hydrodynamics*](https://archive.org/details/superfluidhydrod0003putt/):
>
> In April 1968 during my second year as a graduate student at the Rockefeller University I was one afternoon surprised to see upon entering my thesis adviser’s office, a large pile of books and papers dealing with superfluidity. My adviser <NAME> proceeded to ask me if I knew of any other works on this subject. I replied by asking what had brought about this shift of emphasis away from relativistic thermodynamics. **His answer was that changing fields was a time tested means of renewing himself** and to bring it about he had committed himself to give a course on superfluidity (along with <NAME>, Jr.) in the 1968 summer school at the University of Colorado. In this way he assured me that his course would also fulfill the first requirement of Ehrenfest: that the teacher learn something.
>
>
>
He first became famous for co-devising (with <NAME>, when they were both graduate students of Paul Ehrenfest) the idea of electron spin, but he changed topics frequently. Over time, he worked a wide range of topics related to statistical, thermal, and fluid mechanics: the quantum Boltzmann equation, biased and damped Brownian motion, the relativistic thermodynamics that Putterman had been expecting to work on, and superfluidity.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/28
| 2,715
| 9,575
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a second year masters student in Math in India and I wish to go to the US or Europe for pursuing my PhD.
But due to a low GPA in my first year, I plan to apply next year after completing my masters with a decent aggregate GPA. This would also aid my application because I will have taken more advanced courses related to my research interest. Moreover, I need to save some money for an year so that I can pay the hefty TOEFL and GRE fees, not to mention the insane application fee per university.
Now since the grad school admission process is quite erratic (so have I heard), I also wish to join some grad school here in India just after my masters. That means I plan to be in the coursework phase of my PhD in India while applying for a PhD abroad.
Simple, straight query : Would it negatively affect my application?
Any advice/suggestion shall be highly appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: I think I found it! [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamming), mathematician and Turing Award recipient said it in a 1986 seminar at Bell Labs. The talk was titled "You and Your Research", and a transcript is available [here](https://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/YouAndYourResearch.pdf). The most relevant part is in the Q&A session after the main talk:
>
> *Question:* You mentioned the problem of the Nobel Prize and the subsequent notoriety of what was done to
> some of the careers. Isn't that kind of a much more broad problem of fame? What can one do?
>
>
> *Hamming:* Some things you could do are the following. Somewhere around every seven years make a significant, if not complete, shift in your field. Thus, I shifted from numerical analysis, to hardware, to software, and so on, periodically, because you tend to use up your ideas. When you go to a new field, you have to start over as a baby. You are no longer the big mukity muk and you can start back there and you can start planting those acorns which will become the giant oaks. Shannon, I believe, ruined himself. In fact when he left Bell Labs, I said, "That's the end of Shannon's scientific career." I received a lot of flak from my friends who said that Shannon was just as smart as ever. I said, "Yes, he'll be just as smart, but that's the end of his scientific career," and I truly believe it was.
>
>
> You have to change. You get tired after a while; you use up your originality in one field. You need to get
> something nearby. I'm not saying that you shift from music to theoretical physics to English literature; I mean within your field you should shift areas so that you don't go stale. You couldn't get away with forcing a change every seven years, but if you could, I would require a condition for doing research, being that you *will* change your field of research every seven years with a reasonable definition of what it means, or at the end of 10 years, management has the right to compel you to change. I would insist on a change because I'm serious. What happens to the old fellows is that they get a technique going; they keep on using it. They were marching in that direction which was right then, but the world changes. There's the new direction; but the old fellows are still marching in their former direction.
>
>
> You need to get into a new field to get new viewpoints, and *before* you use up all the old ones. You can do
> something about this, but it takes effort and energy. It takes courage to say, "Yes, I will give up my great reputation." For example, when error correcting codes were well launched, having these theories, I said,
> "Hamming, you are going to quit reading papers in the field; you are going to ignore it completely; you are
> going to try and do something else other than coast on that." I deliberately refused to go on in that field. I wouldn't even read papers to try to force myself to have a chance to do something else. I managed myself, which is what I'm preaching in this whole talk. Knowing many of my own faults, I manage myself. I have a lot of faults, so I've got a lot of problems, i.e. a lot of possibilities of management.
>
>
>
The Shannon referred to in the quote would be [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon), who is often called "the father of information theory". Shannon laid the foundations for this discipline while at Bell Labs, and in his talk Hamming suggests that Shannon would not continue to "plant acorns" afterwards.
---
While it isn't really phrased as a recommendation for others, it is perhaps also worth noting that
[<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Cram) (1987 Nobel laureate in chemistry) has said
>
> To retain my fascination with chemistry, I have had to change my research fields about every 10 years.
>
>
>
This quote can be found in I. Hargittai (2003) *Candid Science III: More Conversations with Famous Chemists*. Imperial College Press, p. 192.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am sure many scholars came up with this piece of advice. This is an excerpt from [an interview](http://faddeev.com/%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3-%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D1%80/) with [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Faddeev) published in the newspaper of Saint Petersburg State University, № 5 (3791), 30.03.2009:
>
> I recall, many told me: "Why did you abandon this golden mine? You have just started it, and it's high time to develop it. Keep on digging..." I am, however, dead set against digging gold mines. And this is what I have preached to my disciples: if you have written five works on a certain topic -- leave it and seek another topic. It is important to switch topics... As a result of this, my disciples and I have a broad variety of directions of research.
>
>
>
However, in academic folklore this piece of advice of his was known long before that. I learned about this rule of Faddeev, through word of mouth, back in my undergraduate years in Saint Petersburg, which was in the early 1980s.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Halmos) in his biography *I Want to Be a Mathematician* (1985) raised that point several times, however he gave himself only five years. Here are some excerpts:
>
> I had a theory, first subconscious and later deliberate, that the way to stay young is to change fields often. I never did become an algebraist, but I did change from measure theory (under which I mean to include probability and ergodic theory) to Hilbert space, then to algebraic logic, and then back to Hilbert space, with some dabbling with topological groups and statistics sprinkled in. After about thirty years, around 1968, I realized that I wasn't likely to be able to change again, and, at about the same time, I started writing more expository papers (such as "Ten problems in Hilbert space") and sermons (such as "How to write mathematics").
>
>
>
>
> In the late 1940's I began to act on one of my beliefs: to stay young, you have to change fields every five years. Looking back on it I can now see a couple of aspects of that glib commandment that weren't always obvious. One; I didn't first discover it and then act on it, but, instead, noting that I did in fact seem to change directions every so often, I made a virtue out of a fact and formulated it as a piece of wisdom. Two: it works. A creative thinker is alive only so long as he grows; you have to keep learning new things to understand the old. You don't really have to change fields—but you must stoke the furnace, branch out, make a strenuous effort to keep from being locked in.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The physicist [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Uhlenbeck) was another famous scientist known for repeating a maxim like this, although I don't know whether he every specified how long one should pursue an area of research before changing to something else. Uhlenbeck's student <NAME> described his advisor's view in the introduction to Putterman's book, [*Superfluid Hydrodynamics*](https://archive.org/details/superfluidhydrod0003putt/):
>
> In April 1968 during my second year as a graduate student at the Rockefeller University I was one afternoon surprised to see upon entering my thesis adviser’s office, a large pile of books and papers dealing with superfluidity. My adviser <NAME> proceeded to ask me if I knew of any other works on this subject. I replied by asking what had brought about this shift of emphasis away from relativistic thermodynamics. **His answer was that changing fields was a time tested means of renewing himself** and to bring it about he had committed himself to give a course on superfluidity (along with <NAME>, Jr.) in the 1968 summer school at the University of Colorado. In this way he assured me that his course would also fulfill the first requirement of Ehrenfest: that the teacher learn something.
>
>
>
He first became famous for co-devising (with <NAME>, when they were both graduate students of Paul Ehrenfest) the idea of electron spin, but he changed topics frequently. Over time, he worked a wide range of topics related to statistical, thermal, and fluid mechanics: the quantum Boltzmann equation, biased and damped Brownian motion, the relativistic thermodynamics that Putterman had been expecting to work on, and superfluidity.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/29
| 1,173
| 4,905
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have completed my Masters, and will soon be beginning a PhD in my field of research. Recently I had an idea that I could start a blog that would explain some papers or concepts I found interesting in a more pedagogical way as compared to peer-reviewed papers or literature reviews. I do understand that a blog in no way can be a replacement for actual peer-reviewed research. However, the reason I would like to blog is so that I feel motivated to learn new topics that I find interesting. In the past, I have found that I learn best when I can 'apply' the knowledge I have learned, and a blog in my mind could be considered an 'application'.
The worry I have is that I do not know how academics perceive such informal scientific endeavors. Is the level of informality in blogs considered too unscientific and frowned upon? Or could this ruin my chances of employment in academia after a PhD in case a supervisor considered this a 'waste of time'? (or although I imagine it to be improbable, can such a blog cast a favorable impression on a supervisor?) Then there is also the issue of whether a blog is worth maintaining since it would take up significant portions of time that could have been spent on other things.
What are your opinions (and your understanding of general academic opinion) on such blogs?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on the quality of the material on the blog, of course. I know of two that are of the "finest kind". One I read every morning though the author doesn't post every day. They are, however, written by people with a lot of experience in the field; CS in this case.
If you post good stuff, don't argue with people, avoid crankery and such, there shouldn't be a problem. However, they won't count for much in things like graduate admissions. That, however, is partly due to the fact that admissions systems rely on a relatively small set of criteria. Some people will look favorably on "extras" and others will ignore them.
Post PhD, however, there are unlikely to be negative issues as long as your output is useful and of good quality. Being useful to students might even be a plus.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Sorry for writing this, but ... **meh**.
There are so many blogs of this kind already, and almost all of them have miserable readership. Writing is highly time-consuming - people underestimate how much effort it is to write polished text on a regular schedule - so the key reasons to write yet another blog would be 1) for your own benefit, e.g. if it helps you understand the material better, and 2) because you enjoy it. If you can genuinely say these benefits apply to you, then sure, go ahead. But it would be kind of embarrassing if after an initial burst of articles, the blog dries up. At least you can take the blog down if that happens.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Regardless of the quality of the blog, which is a different issue the others have mentioned, there's a lack of permanence and a lack of archiving in the scientific databases that would discourage busy researchers to seek it out.
In addition, while a stellar blog may enhance your reputation, a poorly maintained blog will hurt it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I would find it hard to believe that a blog is going to affect your career-- academic or otherwise-- unless it's one of the definitionally rare blogs that's three sigma off the mean in quality (in either direction.)
The right way to look at this, in my opinion, is as a career-related hobby: If you enjoy it, if you think you derive personal benefit from it, go ahead and do it. Just be mindful that you're unlikely to be in that three-sigma category, because you're competing with a lot of more experienced hobbyists who have already sunk a lot of time and practice into it.
For the record, I do think there is some personal benefit to be gained by this: One of the hardest things about academia is learning to translate research-grade thoughts into polished (much less accessible) text. Hobbies that promote that can be useful-- primarily to yourself, and if you're even one sigma on the positive side, useful to at least a few others. And in this case, translating someone else's research quality thought into accessible text gives you more material to practice with.
Whether those benefits outweigh the disadvantage of time spent... well, that's mostly up to you to determine. If a prospective advisor told me I was going to have to give up all of my hobbies-- all of them!-- as "wastes of time" that would be a big enough red flag that I wouldn't work with them. They get to judge the quality and quantity of my academic output, not my hobbies or jobs on the side. They're advisors, not parents. And the vast majority know this.
Consider that pseudonymous blogs (and Substacks, and Medium articles, and all that stuff) are options, too.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/29
| 1,269
| 5,295
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Summary:** after graduation, I sent my professor a friend request on Facebook, but didn't have response for a few days. I feel really bad and I really want to apologize.
---
I just graduated and I have taken several classes in the last few semesters with a certain professor. As time passed, we developed a great relationship where I felt comfortable going to her office hours and asking questions about class and advice about life after graduation. She wrote a recommendation letter for me for grad school and overall she really had a positive impact on me and I made sure to let her know that after the very last class. I asked if we could stay in touch after finals and she agreed. So after graduation, I sent her a friend request on Facebook and it became clear to me after several days that she did not want to do that. I believe she just preferred to stay in touch through email. I feel really bad and I really want to apologize, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Any advice I can get would be appreciated because she was a huge part of my undergrad journey and I really want to make this right if possible.<issue_comment>username_1: I wouldn't worry about it. It is partly a generational thing. I don't use things like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or a host of others. OTOH, my son rarely reads email.
I don't think you need to do anything and no apology is needed. But if you want to stay in touch, use tools that both are comfortable with.
It is always nice, however, when students thank their professors for helping them on the journey.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: You should not apologize, as you have not committed any faux pas.
It may be as others suggested that she does not use Facebook often, but it is also likely that it's not the first time, and she has settled on some policy regarding accepting requests from (former) students. You have no way of knowing that policy in advance, so you did nothing wrong by sending a request. I don't think it puts her in an uncomfortable situation; defining and maintaining professional boundaries is a part of the job.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Did you try it on with your teacher? The best thing to do is just withdraw the friend request it will blow over. Just keep in contact through email like you have been doing
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> I feel really bad and I really want to apologize
>
>
>
Why do you feel bad and why do you wanna apologize? You're really sure you've put her in uncomfortable position?
But if you're sure, maybe you should send an email message to your ex-professor and tell her about your thoughts.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: It's most likely that your professor gets tons of friend requests on Facebook every week. So, she simply ignores all of them because she is too busy with teaching, work, researches, meetings, conferences, etc... (BTW, some of these FB requests may even be from spasm, hackers, or pranksters, which should definitely be ignored.)
There is no need for you either to take it personal or to apologize. I don't think you offend her or make her feel uncomfortable in any way.
You still can follow her on Facebook to get updated on her events if you want to.
If she prefers email communication only, that should be efficient enough. The reason is that email is private and fast between the senders and receivers, which may allow you to concentrate on the main topics very quickly (such as researches, grants, academic advice,...)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: It's entirely possible, if not the most probable reason, she simply hasn't seen your FB request. A lot of people just phase out of using social media or only do periodic visits.
On the flip side, her accepting your FB request would open a bit more of her private life to you (photos, friends, love interests, posts, political opinions, religion), etc... She may not be comfortable with having you in this space.
The alternative would be to see if she has a profile on LinkedIn and connect with her that way. LinkedIn is targeted more towards professional relationships, career accomplishments, and job searching. The posts rarely cross into non-work related stuff.
Regardless, don't take it personally. There's nothing to apologize for. But whatever you do. Do not follow up or approach her to her to ask, "why haven't you accepted my FB request yet?" That's awkward for anyone to answer, regardless of the reason.
Otherwise, stay in touch over email. But do realize you aren't her only student.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: You seem to *waay* overthink it.
A friend request is just a question: do you want to be connected on Facebook? I don't see why would asking this be inappropriate, regardless the medium.
Besides, people send and deny friend request every now-and-then without thinking too much about it. It's completely normal. She either didn't even realize yours yet, or didn't want to accept it. Some prefer to only be connected with close friends. Some use SM rarely. No problem at all. She probably doesn't even remember it anymore. Just let it go and keep using to emails. You didn't do anything wrong.
This has no reflection on your personal relationship at all. Why do you think othervise?
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/29
| 1,920
| 8,136
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received a review request from a journal (in case it matters, it is the best journal in a certain field of mathematics). The article has some material in which I can reasonably be considered an expert (because I myself have published something related in the same journal) whereas some other aspect of the article is beyond my comfort zone.
Therefore, I am thinking of responding to the request affirmatively under the provision that there is some other reviewer who can better review the latter aspect of the paper. My question for this site is whether or not if this is a common and/or acceptable reply to a review request.
A related issue is that the Web editorial system is set up so that a comment to the editor is solicited only if a review request is declined. I'm not sure if I want to decline the request solely to talk to the editor and cost the authors a few more weeks of administrative time.<issue_comment>username_1: This request isn't common, sufficiently so that I've yet to see it after handling hundreds of reviews.
It is relatively common that referees says "I'm not an expert on X, but I'm an expert on Y, and ...". In this case most editors will look for an expert on X. If this involves inviting reviewers anew, then so be it - you gotta do what you gotta do. It's conceivable that reviewers say "I'm not an expert on X" while accepting the review request - if there's a box for such comments they might use that, otherwise they can just reply to the invitation email and reach someone who will know what to do. I don't recall seeing this happen, but it'd surely be appreciated, since it tells the editor to start looking for a reviewer who knows X *now* instead of after you submit your review.
What is most unusual about your request is that you are accepting *on condition* you are not the only reviewer, which makes it seem like you think you are in charge of the paper. You're not the editor, you don't make final decisions, and editors can accept/reject a paper which you recommend reject/accept for (see e.g. [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11362/why-does-editor-reject-when-reviewers-recommend-acceptance)). But it's a common misconception, so something a long-time editor is unlikely to bat an eyelid at.
**tl; dr**:
* No, it's not common.
* Yes, it's acceptable.
* Reply to the invitation email and tell them you lack expertise in X. Odds are they'll say "in that case, let's cancel" or "that's not a problem, review anyway". In the latter situation, you can expect that they will look for someone with expertise in X.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's not very common, but does happen that a paper is reviewed by several referees where each only read one part of it. (I've been on the other end of it - being asked if I could review "at least part" of a certain particularly long paper.) It is definitely a reasonable offer on the part of the referee. I'm assuming that the there's an invite email signed by an editor; I would contact them by e-mail before clicking "accept" in the system.
That said, there's a case to accept the entire refereeing task without any provisions.
* being an expert on half the content of the paper, you are as qualified a reader as it gets. If you cannot understand and check the validity of the second part, arguably the authors should rewrite it so it is understandable to you.
* it may be very beneficial for you to learn in-depth new material that is directly connected to what you are doing. Some of us have an amazing self-discipline but for others having an external deadline helps :)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I don't understand. Full disclosure, I've reviewed 2 papers (I'm still a student). And I don't care if I'm the only person they ask to review, I care about if I can give valuable feedback to the paper.
If you don't feel like you can, then just tell the editor "Hey I know I can review some of this, but I'm not sure if I'd know about X Y Z". In fact, even just from personal experience: second paper I've reviewed, I basically reviewed their methods. I was the "methods" reviewer, if you will. Most of my focus commented on their implementation. The other two focused more on the substantive area of things, while additionally commenting on methods. So, it's not completely unheard of.
My point is, different reviewers will bring different strengths. Also, the managing editor will also have their feedback to give based on yours, so it won't (usually) just literally be you doing the reviewing. Either way, make your concerns known from jump.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I see this as a common issue and have seen this with myself being Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, as well as Editor
* Reviewer 1 writes to Editor (following review request): I can review the paper but have never worked with Piffles and thus will not be able to comment on the applications concerning Piffles in section 3.
* Editor replies: Thank you. Yes, that is fine, please do so and I will find another reviewer for this part.
[ The editor *could* say: No, thank you, I want you to review the whole paper, but they would be foolish to insist on this unless both parts are deeply interwoven, as they will need to find another willing reviewer. ]
* Editor writes to prospective reviewer 2: I received this paper that proves an interesting result in Q-Theory. They apply this to a question on Piffles, which is an area that this ont well known within the Q-theory community. This argument is localized in section 3. I am asking you, being an expert on Piffles, whether you could comment on the validity of and potential interest in this material in this section.
* Reviewer 2 replies to Editor: I will do so, but restrict my review on section 3 and take the Q-theory statement (Theorem 17) as true.
As Reviewer 1 you will not know who reviewer 2 is, nor what they will do in detail. There is nothing formally written down concerning the restricted role, apart from the reply from the Editor.
Ultimately it is the Editor's responsibility to ensure that the paper is fully covered.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You could just tell them you're not expert for certain aspects and then leave the decision what to do about this to the editor. Normally they will find another reviewer, but they also may have enough personal expertise to assess the missing part themselves. Or your review for the part you know about turns out to be so bad that the other part can't save the paper anyway.
As an editor I am very keen on reviewers who acknowledge their limitations, but I wouldn't like a condition as you suggest, because I may not yet have another reviewer at the time point when you're asking for this, and not be able to guarantee that I'll find one in limited time. So my advice is: Just accept the task, say clearly what you are not expert for, and leave the further responsibility to the editor.
Re your other question: Can you maybe find a contact email address in the email that invited you to review? Do you know who the editor is and find their email on the web? If I remember correctly, I have always found a way to contact the editor/journal when I needed to, and declaring a lack of competence for a part of the paper is a good reason to do this.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I have done a similar thing myself a couple of times. No, it’s not common. Yes, it’s acceptable. However, I would (and did, when I was in this situation) phrase things differently, and specifically I would leave out the part where you set conditions to the editor for accepting the assignment - as others have commented, that’s overstepping your role and comes across as a bit entitled.
Instead, just state that you can only provide feedback pertaining to the part of the paper you have expertise on (and explain what that part is). The editor can determine whether that suits their needs. And you can trust that the editor can think of the idea of getting another reviewer without you making that specific suggestion (let alone phrasing it as a demand).
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/29
| 664
| 2,508
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm thinking of applying to the <NAME> postdoc fellowship. I've been to [their FAQ page](https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/horizon-msca-2023-pf-01-01;callCode=null;freeTextSearchKeyword=MSCA%20;matchWholeText=true;typeCodes=1,0;statusCodes=31094501,31094502,31094503;programmePeriod=null;programCcm2Id=null;programDivisionCode=null;focusAreaCode=null;destinationGroup=null;missionGroup=null;geographicalZonesCode=null;programmeDivisionProspect=null;startDateLte=null;startDateGte=null;crossCuttingPriorityCode=null;cpvCode=null;performanceOfDelivery=null;sortQuery=sortStatus;orderBy=asc;onlyTenders=false;topicListKey=topicSearchTablePageState), but I didn't see a question that addresses the possibility for the same candidate who wishes to submit two (or more) research proposals with two different future mentors at two different (or same) institutions. Thus I wonder whether it's possible at all?
Mar<NAME> association never replies, I tried emailing them before; so how could I check this?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you should read the *Guide for applicants* of the MSCA-PF very carefully if you want to increase your chances of getting the award.
In the 2023 edition at p. 7 they clearly state that:
>
> Only one proposal per individual researcher can be submitted. In case
> of several proposals involving the same individual researcher, only
> the last submitted proposal will be considered eligible. However,
> please note that the same supervisor and a host institution can be
> involved in more than one proposal in the same call.
>
>
>
But the *Guide* also contains a lot of other absolutely vital info if you plan to apply!
If you need to ask any other questions, you can try to contact the National Contact Point (NCP) of your country. In my experience they respond very quickly, but I guess it can vary from country to country.
Finally I would suggest you to contact your potential supervisor as soon as possible. And keep in mind that most research institution need to approve your application first, and this can also take time.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It’s part of the requirements that you submit only one proposal. So don’t get into trouble submitting two. My advice will be to submit the same proposal for another fellowship. There are so many fellowships out there that you could actually submit a new application to.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/30
| 1,915
| 8,157
|
<issue_start>username_0: I personally do not know what to do. Currently I am employed in a state forensic hospital full time. I want to attend a PhD Program full time in Biomedical Engineering. I have been struggling with the idea of leaving my full time job because I have great medical insurance that took me a very long time to obtain. I obtained this job primarily for my wife especially who has heart problems and diabetes as well as my son having heart issues too. The insurance on my job has secured these issues where my wife and son are covered 100%.
Leaving my full-time job would crush my family. My school offers externship programs only for student and grants benefits to primarily the student. I can't transfer the insurance that they are offering me to my wife and son, as the policy does not work this way. I am very scarred and frightened about making a move to the PhD Program simply because I won't have the specific coverage that they need. Because of this I have thought about taking a online PhD Program that in Public Health that I am not really interested in. It is attractive because it allows me to stay in my full-time job and maintain insurance, but I wouldn't be happy with my PhD choice. I am not sure what to do! My family comes first and I realize this, but I would really love to be part of the PhD Program without the anxiety of looking back with fear because of the complex medical conditions that they presently have. I really couldn't concentrate in my course work knowing that I am enrolled in a PhD Program and not having adequate insurance for my wife and son. Can someone help me in how to handle this issue?<issue_comment>username_1: It's unclear where you are based, and we are probably discussing wishful thinking, unless you have already been accepted in a PhD program.
From what you present and assuming you are based in the US, you have three solutions, in order of feasibility:
* move to another country providing better conditions to PhD students and to their citizen in general;
* take out a hefty loan throughout your PhD and be sure you can cover insurance and any medical conditions out of your pocket;
* do your PhD remotely.
The third option is basically impossible, unless you have already a connection to someone being a professor and willing to support you to that extent.
In any case, you should check what are your employment perspectives and possible salary *after* your PhD, because given your family ties you have not one but two person dependent on your salary.
This consideration are valid if you want to pursue a PhD only to have some career prospects. If you pursue a PhD for the academic career, or for the improvement of human conditons, etcetc, please note you are doing it for your selfish ego (as plenty of current academics and of perspective academics).
Why?
Because research and knowledge will advance with or without you (unless you actively sabotage its progress, like the Catholic Church did with astronomy or Virkow did with Semmelweis). The earlier you understand this deep motivation, the better (and the better you will be able to understand the other people in the academia).
There is nothing wrong in having a large ego and letting it out, I am quite sure it is more damaging (trying) to repress it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I was in a similar position when I started my PhD, so I can speak from experience. I was married with children, and needed to figure out the health insurance thing before deciding if I could go to graduate school, and if I could go, which program was best for someone in my circumstances.
The first thing you need to know is that there is no such thing as a "normal" or "common" PhD program in the US. It's the Wild West out there, and there are as many combinations of schools, programs, financial aid offers, etc., as there is a market for students looking to improve their credentials. So if your question is "can I get an online PhD", or some other workaround to the residency and health insurance issue, the answer is "yes." But to the questions of "can I get a *worthwhile* PhD", the answer ranges between "probably not" to "maybe."
Most worthwhile PhD programs have both a residency requirement and a health insurance requirement. The residency requirement means that you need to be present on campus for some period of time during the duration of your program. This ranges from having to be present on campus 9 months of the year, to the ridiculous, in which you only have to be in-person to sign a paper one day a year. If you can pull off getting a PhD in an institution without a strict residency requirement depends not only on the university policy, but the type of program. A linguist studying the evolution of languages in a remote region of the world almost necessarily needs to be off campus, while a biomedical engineer or a molecular biologist will need either to be on campus 12 months of the year or install a $6 million lab in their home office.
On the health insurance requirement, it again, depends on the program. Some schools give you free health insurance, covered as part of your TA/TF contract, and this extends to subsidized family insurance. Other schools just tell you to get insurance on the open marketplace and show proof of insurance. There's no point in me summarizing all of the possible options here, and you really have to read the fine print. For example, a university offering you full insurance coverage and a subsidized family insurance option can later tell you that the "subsidized" option is $5,000 to $10,000/yr depending on your family size.
About the Medicaid option mentioned in the comments, you really need to check your eligibility and not rely on anybody telling you that you'll "probably" or "likely" qualify. Since your family already has serious pre-existing conditions, a mistake in this area can cost your tens of thousands on dollars in medical bills.
**The decision of going to grad school is not like shopping for an undergrad degree**. You need to decide on a topic, then make a list of prospective advisors, find out the different residency requirements and health insurance options offered at the institutions where these advisors work, find out the Medicare eligibility options, etc.
In my case, I solved the issue with a mix of university subsidies on family health insurance, my wife getting a job that offered health insurance for her, paying for state-subsidized health insurance for the children, odd jobs, extra scholarships from my department, etc. It was probably the most stressful thing, as any slight change in my personal circumstances required a complete re-configuring of the health insurance options. Did it work at the end? "Yes." Was it worth it? "Maybe."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I faced almost exactly your situation and my heart goes out to you.
My solution was to do what it took to maintain full time employment while doing a PhD (which is in progress). It has not been easy, and I would not recommend it to anyone who isn't in an extreme situation.
Insurance wasn't really the problem. The health insurance I could get as a student is very good. The problem is that serious illnesses often come with major expenses no insurance will cover (special diets that require more expensive food, accessible housing, etc, etc, etc).
Even though I could insure my family as a PhD student, I couldn't cover the other expenses.
You're facing a lot of personal choices that no one can make for you, but what I will say is whatever you decide to do you need to make sure your family, your supervisor at work, and your advisor at school is on board and in support of your ambition. That is the only way this can work.
So I would say that instead of applying broadly to programs, try to meet potential advisors. Some will be very interested in you because you have work experience and this personal history of stepping up to meet difficult challenges. The ones who aren't interested might connect you to one who is. If you decide to exclusively be a PhD student, ask hard questions about funding before leaving your job.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/30
| 987
| 4,131
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal and received feedback from two reviewers. Reviewer #1's feedback was rather nonspecific, but Reviewer #2's comments were quite perplexing.
This reviewer accused my paper of lacking novelty, stating it merely echoed previous findings but using new methods. Paradoxically, they also recommended that I reconsider my tone, claiming it lacked support from prior research.
In an even more baffling turn, Reviewer #2 appeared to completely misconstrue the methodology of my paper, launching extensive critique based on this misinterpretation. They also alleged the presence of multiple typos and non-standard usage in tables and figures, but didn't specify any instances. To top it all off, I received a letter recommending transfer.
My advisor opined that the comments were largely baseless and agreed to write a rebuttal letter in the name of her. I'm now in a bit of a muddle, unsure about the best way to respond to such a perplexing reviewer. The incoherent and contradictory feedback suggests to me that it may have been given by multiple individuals, possibly lacking foundational knowledge in this field. This is the only explanation I can think of for the confusing logic and conflicting statements in these comments. How should I best address this situation?
(PS: Our field is short of reviewers)<issue_comment>username_1: Rule one of responding to referee reports: Referees misunderstanding your manuscript is a "you problem" not a "referee" problem.
If a referee has misunderstood what you wrote, then what you wrote was not clear enough. Try to understand why the referee misunderstood your intended meaning and improve your writing accordingly. Once you have done this the rebuttal will pretty much write itself.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The hardest part of science is taking something that is clear *to you* and making it clear *to others*. You did not do that part correctly if a referee did not understand your paper.
So the first step is to go through the referee comments one by one and address them. Whatever you choose to do, don’t gamble that transferring a manuscript that has been misunderstood without changes will result in a different outcome. If you transfer to a journal by the same publisher, the new referees will likely have access to the old referee reviews, and you’re not ahead. If you restart the process with another publisher, you might have the same referee as you have now.
In my mind, it is slightly better to resubmit with a rebuttal precisely because it will go to the same referee and you can address specific points of the report; a new set of referees often generates a new set of problems.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Sometimes you *do* get an unhelpful review. When you do, your job is to convince the editor that the review was in fact unhelpful; it is their job to decide what to do after that -- either to get another reviewer or to proceed based on the one sensible review.
You *are* well within your rights to respond like this:
>
>
> >
> > [Reviewer:] Multiple typos and non-standard notation make this paper very difficult to read.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Response: We have tried to standardise our notation more wherever we notice it -- for example, replacing "stdev" with $$\sigma$$ as our notation for standard deviation in figure axes -- but, without specific examples of what the reviewer finds fault with, we are not able to improve our paper accordingly.
>
>
>
The flip side is that if you're going to write something like this, then wherever the reviewer *has* said something specific and actionable, you better well have done something. Add or remove paragraphs as asked -- your paper isn't going to tank just because it was changed 5-10% in response to a reviewer, and if it's good work people will reach out directly to you, whereupon you can tell your side of the story. Do what you must to get the paper past review -- that gives you the credibility to tell the editor that some things the reviewer said simply *could not be done*.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/05/30
| 1,187
| 5,016
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a 25 year old European student, I will graduate in a CS & Math dual degree this year. I have accepted an offer from a very good company (Meta) and I would like to get into a top CS Master program (either in the US or in Europe) and maybe consider PhD in a couple of years. I don't want to start right now because I am burnout from academy and I need the money.
My grades are solid although not perfect (around 9 / 10) and I have one publication in a mid-level conference in the topic of Machine Learning.
What can I do to improve my chances of entering into a good program? All the advice I have found is aimed to bachelor students, like improve your grades or create a relationship with your teachers.
Some ideas I have:
* Try to publish more. My advisor has shown favorable, so it may be possible to keep researching and try to get publications. However, publications would have to be limited to somewhat niche fields, as I am not sure I can keep up with the frenetic path of Machine Learning research while working full-time.
* Participate or assist to congresses, workshops or other academic events.
* Participate in professional events, like Hackathons. Most of these events involve coming up with ideas to approach industry problems, so it may reflect favorably on my capacity to approach practical problems.
* Do personal projects, collaborate more with open source projects, get certifications: I think all of these are valuable for getting hired, but I am not sure they will provide any advantage at academic level.
What of these will improve my chances the most?
**Observation**: I am not asking about my chances of entering a concrete program. I rather want advice on what is the best way to improve your admission chances to a program once outside of university. While every program has its own process, I believe admissions valuate more or less the same things (correct me if I am wrong)<issue_comment>username_1: In the US, M.Sc. programs in Computer Science tend to be commercial products. In general, they give good value (retraining and actualizing) for money. If you have decent grades and letters of recommendation (and working at Meta itself would also be a positive sign), you will get in.
In the US, people tend to go directly into a Ph.D. if they are interested into research. They leave with an M.S. if it is not for them. The main concern of an admissions committee is always whether a candidate has the capability to do independent, but supervised research. Since this is difficult to assess, a number of measurements are substituted. Getting into a top program usually requires excellent test results. However, senior faculty can always ask for a certain student to be admitted (with a good reason given). Even in the US and in CS, universities are hiring less tenure-track people and often want people in the hot field de jour (such as data science or machine learning). So, getting an academic job might not be so easy, even if you come from a highly ranked but not top university. However, the Ph.D. gives you much more interesting jobs and usually, the pay differential pays for the time working on your Ph.D. where you will live on a stipend that pays nicely for your living expenses, but not much more.
If you want to do research, the easiest way to get into a good Ph.D. program is to have some research already under your belt. If you can combine this with your work, do that. If not, I would not waste my time on hackathons etc. Personal projects that show capabilities related to your desired field of specialization might help. But if you are working for one of the big, high-stress companies with lot of turn-over, no-one seriously expects you to do much outside of work. Meeting people at conferences and
workshops does not work out too well in my experience, unless you present something.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, congrats on your job offer! As for MA programmes, the situation is different in the UK and in continental Europe.
**Europe:** Most MA/MSc programmes take two years and are similar in form to a BA/BSc degree: you take courses and write a dissertation. Admission is often solely based on grades, and a 9/10 average seems decent.
**UK:** Master's courses usually take 1 year, and offer either training in a specialised sub-field of CS, or are research-based. The latter often give you an option to write a longer thesis - this could be a good starting point to a PhD.
As for admission, in the UK you need:
* good grades - which you already have;
* reference letters - so it's important to stay in touch with your undergrad professors, and perhaps to cultivate a good working relationship with a manager/mentor at your workplace (who can later write a "professional reference");
* research proposal (especially for research-based degrees) - so think of a project that you find interesting and/or important. Maybe you'll come across an interesting research problem at work?
Good luck!
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/05/30
| 2,094
| 9,176
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing about the analysis of a certain mathematical object. The expression for this object is obtainable in several ways:
* non-rigorous ways: they amount to just computations
* rigorous ways: they are precise and apart from the above computations, one needs to supply some proof of certain passages
I have a fully rigorous proof of the derivation of the expression for this object. I think that including it in my article is no good service for the community, because:
* there is no more space
* the proof is technical and not enlightening (no new ideas, essentially)
The only element of novelty is that the object is related to a new problem, not found in the literature, but very similar to others. And in a somewhat different formal setting than most other examples, but again, the proof outline and the key formulas/conceptual passages, are already present.
I am targeting a respectable journal where usually, facts are proved rigorously, not formally. And where proofs (formal or not) are not deferred to the supplemental material. That is the space for pictures, code description, implementation details and so on.
>
> Should I include the lengthy proof, hence, in the supplemental material? How about including a non-rigorous proof using a quicker method in the appendix?
>
>
>
Otherwise, is it a good way to go just citing the various computation recipes out there, without spelling the computation (nor a proof) out in detail?
---
*More about "The object"*
I am working in optimal control and I have to compute a derivative of a functional. A non-rigorous proof would be to form a Lagrangian and differentiate it formally, without checking that things are actually differentiable, for instance (it is a bit more complicated but this is the essence). The Lagrangian approach is non-rigorous. For a fully rigorous approach one should prove differentiability of every piece and this takes considerably more effort. Say, using the implicit function theorem in function spaces.
The non-rigorous passages are especially already present in the literature, for examples more or less.similar to mine. The rigorous passages maybe are not exactly equal to something seen before, but there are standardized recipes to obtain them (e.g. apply the implicit function theorem).<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that you match the standards of the journal if they are clear. Readers of the journal, and reviewers, will look for that and expect it. You will get feedback from reviewers who may ask for changes.
The other option is to write it the way you think it seems best and submit it. Again, the reviewers may want changes.
You also need to consider whether you have chosen the right journal if you think that they way you think it should go isn't a good match. Maybe another journal that doesn't expect complete rigor would be best.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Sometimes there is a way to write down a proof that treats a new situation but contains many non-original elements in a very short way by referring to other papers wherever possible, omitting details. Often you can get away with this even if a reader who wanted to reconstruct the whole thing would have to put quite some work in. Ask yourself: What is the minimal way to write down how this works so that an expert reader with some time in their hand can follow the recipe, possibly involving cited literature, and convince themselves that the statement holds in this way? A reader who then doesn't succeed doing this can still contact you, and of course a reviewer can complain if they don't find this sufficient, however this kind of thing is not a reason for rejection.
In my experience, quite a bit of proof completing work is left to the interested reader in many math journals, with the effect that proofs can be presented in very limited space if they are not of central importance or interest.
Whether this approach works in your case of course I can't know.
Another option is to put a version with detailed proof on arxiv.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Writing a paper always means weighing the reader's attention span: you are trying to present enough for your reader to, well, learn something new, without supplying so much information that your reader loses the *important* details.1 I can think of some possible functional outcomes of not choosing the appropriate depth:
* Skepticism: If an important step is glossed over, the reader may find it too dubious and not accept your overall argument.
* Brittleness: If an important step is glossed over, and it explains a limitation of your argument, a reader may be tempted to expand your argument beyond its due limits.
* Rabbit-holing: If too many trivial steps are expounded, the reader may get lost in trying to prove them and forget the overall argument.
* Pigeon-holing: If too many trivial steps are expounded, the reader may think of your result as being very limited (for example due to many things being taken "without loss of generality") and not grasp its general extent.
Surely there are more. I hope you can see that I am encouraging you to consider the *functional impact* of what you keep in or leave out of a proof, not just whether its *form* fits a certain brevity or verbosity.
As an example -- I recently published a derivation of an equation, connecting certain thermodynamic ensemble averages, that I've been working on for a while. The equation began life as an equality between some esoteric integrals which I "projected down" into the thing I actually wanted. Later, while writing the paper, I reasoned that there must be a simpler way to prove it; I eventually managed it by shuffling around some integrands, but I was quite unsatisfied because I couldn't see the physical significance of what I'd done.
Eventually, when I published the paper, I only included the simpler proof in the text. But I included the original proof in the supplementary information and wrote a paragraph in the text explaining its physical significance. Alas, the simpler proof *did* introduce a physically-significant quantity, which I only identified when a collaborator asked me just exactly how it worked (naturally, just after the paper had been published). This is an example of me skipping an expositional step where, had I fussed over writing it down properly, I might have mined an additional insight for the paper.
Maybe you can do something similar, such as writing a shorter proof in your publication and referring the reader to an arXiv document for more details?
---
1Think of your reader as a biological large language model, and your job is to fit every important concept into the available context window.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It’s really up to you to decide what is the best use of your time and effort to make the greatest positive contribution to your research community. I’ve also struggled with these sorts of questions and it’s not always an obvious call to make. However, I think your reasoning is influenced by some superficial and irrelevant considerations, particularly “there is no more space”.
If you don’t think the “rigorous proof”\* is useful to anyone, fine, don’t write it - that’s a totally valid reason not to write something. But if on the other hand it is actually useful, then presumably there will be a journal that is willing to publish it. Instead of fixating on a specific journal to target and lowering the usefulness of your content to satisfy the journal’s space constraints, consider writing the actual content that would make the greater impact and publishing it in a place where it will be appreciated (either instead of, or in addition to, publishing the slick non-rigorous derivation in the journal you currently have in mind).
\* putting this is in quotes because from my point of view it’s a tautology that belongs in the [department of redundancy department](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: "The proof is left as an exercise to the reader" is one of the most irritating concepts in modern acadaemia.
It's the same in other fields where only vague details of methodologies are provided or source code and algorithmic implementations aren't included.
You may think your proof is rigorous, but without including this detail how can a reviewer know?
If it's too long to include in your article, publish it somewhere publicly available (it doesn't really matter where as long as it's not ephemeral), and cite it or include it as an appendix.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: First, this is mathematics, so you really need to include your rigorous proof somewhere in the article.
However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with putting the non-rigorous proof in the body of the article and deferring the rigorous but unilluminating proof to the supplemental material. Supplemental material is intended for things that the average reader of an article may not be interested in, but which may be important for readers who are experts in the subject area. The rigorous proof fits these criteria perfectly.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/31
| 446
| 1,870
|
<issue_start>username_0: This class is a natural science course and has 3 exams which total up to about half of the grade. Students have taken all three of the exams, and it is practically the end of the semester. There are about 20 students in total because there were some drops earlier in the term.
Students don't know the average of each test, and don't know how they're doing relative to the class. I am tempted to reach out directly to ask for exam medians and standard deviations, but am wondering what would be the reasoning. Guessing that it is either for flexibility or because the class size is small. Or it could be teaching style.
Why would a professor not release exam statistics?
Edit: Every other class in the department has been graded on a curve.<issue_comment>username_1: Statistics for a small class are close to meaningless. You should reach out to your professor about how you are doing in the class, maybe disguised as a request to help you perform better. However, if the instructor provided a syllabus with grade break-down, you can calculate your overall grade as a percentage yourself.
Many university instructors do not grade on a curve, so that your relative standing in the class does not matter to you.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are reasons more fundamental than this, but here's one that might be surprising:
The Blackboard LMS has a simple check-switch to turn this display on or off for students. My initial instinct was to have it on. But I found that too many of my community college students were confused by, and couldn't understand, those statistics. "I don't get it, the grade was 60% but my average on the test is 70%?" was a question I'd have to field multiple times each semester.
So I shut it off. I've never gotten an inquiry about not having those class-level statistics.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/05/31
| 755
| 2,984
|
<issue_start>username_0: I spent 2 years in a Visiting Assistant Professor position, which just "ended" after 4 tenure track positions were filled. I was not considered for any of them. My best guess is that I a) don't have enough research, 2) am older (definitely 40+) so won't be there for long enough.
After the semester, the Chair called to ask if I would like to stay as a Visiting Assistant Professor one more year to teach Statistics, which I am not good at so said no thank you. Yesterday, I accidentally received the minutes from this week's department meeting which state an "request to fill" position was just approved, so they will be "rush hiring" for that this summer. Should I contact the Chair to let him know that I am interested? Or let it go? I am confused as to why I couldn't be considered. I hope it is not an age thing...<issue_comment>username_1: I have been on many faculty search committees and helped with hiring of VAPs. I have no access to mind reading abilities to see what's inside the skull of the hiring committees who did not "consider" you (your words.) So let's start with the basics:
Did you apply for the other 4 Tenure Track (TT) positions? If you did not apply, they didn't consider you, even if you made a verbal expression of interest.
If you did apply, then they probably did consider your application and decided against you. At my department, we guarantee VAPs that they'll move to the second round, but that's obviously not your department's policy. For those 4 TT positions, were they for Assistant Professors in your area of research?
You mention that you have little research. VAPs are teaching positions, and it's very difficult to do research with a full-time teaching load. Are the TT positions previously open research-based, i.e. they expect you to get extramural funding? If so, there's your answer. You should apply to teaching-based TT positions. There are many out there.
If they considered and decided against you, it could be the age thing, but I doubt it. Again, I have no insight about what went into their minds, but we hire people in their 40s and 50s all the time.
You also mention that they just got approved a "Request To Fill." Is it for another VAP position, in statistics, the one you rejected? Or for a rush hire of a TT position? To me, it sounds like a rush hire of a VAP. If that's the case, you already rejected that.
To answer your questions:
>
> Should I contact the Chair to let him know that I am interested? Or let it go?
>
>
>
If it is a TT position and your research is within the scope of the advertised positions, yes, apply. A formal application is the only way to know if they want someone like you.
If they don't call you for a second round (short-list/phone interviews), then it's time to move on.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Regardless of the specifics of your situation, if you don't tell anyone that you're interested in a position, then you will not get it.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/05/31
| 492
| 2,068
|
<issue_start>username_0: As described in the title, imagine a scenario where one has multiple prepared manuscripts for submission. Due to external factors (slow review speed, unavailability of reviewers, technical issues, ...) a decision is delayed on the first submission. The same happens to the second submission which is rejected in the course of the review. Nonetheless, one manages to finish two other manuscripts. In this situation, one ends up with 4 manuscripts submitted and under review at the same time.
How can one avoid such situations? What if one receives multiple review decisions within a short time frame? Intentionally delaying publication does not seem a suitable solution to me.<issue_comment>username_1: Your title question is: *How to avoid an accumulation of manuscripts "under review"?*
My first response is: "What's the problem?" You're being productive. I think I have 4 manuscripts under review. Depending upon your field, this happens more than you think.
To answer your questions in the body of your post:
*How can one avoid such situations?*
Depending upon how long reviews take in your field, this may or may not be a problem.
*What if one receives multiple review decisions within a short time frame?*
Address them as they come in. Most journals in my field give ~30 days for minor revisions and 60 to 90+ for major.
So, triage your revisions.
Also, I have asked for extensions and never had any journal say no.
Usually, the time for revisions corresponds to the amount of work.
*Intentionally delaying publication does not seem a suitable solution to me.*
I agree.
One last tip: Write well written papers so you do not get a lot of minor revisions and the reviewers will also have fewer points of confusion.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: That's how this life works. I have multiple manuscripts I'm working on, many of which will all simultaneously be out for review. And so what? Nothing wrong with it at all, if being a researcher is what you do. As others have said, just means you've been productive
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/05/31
| 1,924
| 8,342
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a masters student in the process of writing a thesis in computer science.
In particular, there is someone who works in industry who is probably one of, if not the world leading experts in a particular kind of mathematical set of functions. However this person is very much not an academic, he is an industry researcher whose primary objective is practical applications rather than publishing papers.
He maintains a personal blog where he explains a lot of concepts related to this topic in depth. I have used and referenced his blog religiously all through my masters. For example he has a list of functions in this class that can be used to construct very interesting things as well as which operations can be used to combine them.
I know some of these functions he didn't make, they have been known if not since antiquity, at least since the middle ages, others he may have come up with or may have heard about them from someone else and just wrote them in his blog.
What do I do here? It seems like I should cite him since this resource is probably the thing I referenced the most through my masters, but he is probably not the first author of most of the concepts in there, but for many, the first author is likely lost to history.<issue_comment>username_1: **Short answer**: you probably should, but you probably don't have to.
**Longer answer**: there are a few levels on which to consider this:
* **Research content**: this is the one you allude to. If you are taking original ideas from the blog, then obviously you need to cite it. Otherwise you are claiming original work when in fact it is not original. If these concepts have been known "since antiquity," then the blog probably does not contain original ideas, so there's no need to cite on this account. And it's not necessary to track down the original citation for common knowledge (though a statement like "This formula has been known since antiquity and is sometimes attributed to Euler" may be a good idea, if only to avoid questions like "where did *that* come from?").
* **Pedagogical content**: the writing is also an "idea." The examples used, the organization, certain memorable turns of phrase, etc. So, the question becomes, how much of your paper uses pedagogical ideas from the blog?
+ If you essentially rewrote the blog in your own words, then you have to cite. It is plagiarism to copy-and-paste content and then change some of the words.
+ Even if you wrote something from scratch without looking at the blog, it's possible you remembered some of the author's insights and those influenced your writing. This is particularly likely if all of your knowledge on this topic is from the one source.
+ On the other hand, if you reviewed dozens of sources on this topic and you don't see any obvious similarities between what you wrote and the blog, then it might not be necessary to cite.
* **Providing a useful reference.** Remember that citations are not only a means of avoiding plagiarism; they also allow others to dig deeper into related topics. If this blog was so helpful to you, it will likely be helpful to others, and so it's good practice to cite it. Perhaps even with a comment: "For an accessible and thorough description of this topic, see [4].").
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think there are two questions here - should you cite this blog and how do you cite "common knowledge".
1. You should definitely cite his blog if you used it. I think that almost goes without saying. You obviously relied on his work as a source of information and practical guidance. The possible problem I see here is if he does not provide references himself. You likely want to verify and cite peer-reviewed work as well - even if you originally found a particular method or piece of information in his blog. This is not to say that you need to *double check* his work (since it sounds like he is a reliable and well known expert in your field). Just that it usually isn't good form to *only* cite a secondary, non-peer reviewed source like a blog.
2. As for citing common knowledge, this is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt... I tend to err on the side of caution. "Common knowledge" is a bit subjective and may not actually common knowledge for everyone who is interested in reading a paper. It's nice to provide references for critical pieces of your argument, even if you think they fall into the category of "common knowledge". In your case, since you are writing a master's level thesis, you should probably over-cite a bit (when in doubt, add a citation) anyway. You can always trim irrelevant citations during editing.
To sum up, in your case, I would cite the blog. Acknowledge that you initially found information there. But you should also **provide peer-reviewed sources** for any methods you use and any claims you make. For a function that is so old that you cannot reliably trace the source, you can cite any number of reviews, textbooks (in a pinch), or other academic sources that explain the method. I'm sure they exist. Pick one and include it as a reference along with the blog. This probably isn't always necessary but in this case I think it's good practice. The point of a master's thesis is to show that you understand the field and that you can do basic research, not that you can copy a series of blog posts. Keep that in mind.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Simply put, decide whether you cite a work by asking yourself the following question: If you are writing a history of your field, would you give credit to the author for the contribution? If not, don't cite his work. You can thank him for his nice blog in the acknowledgments section instead.
**Long answer**: I don't think you should cite his blog if it only contains pedagogical explanation at the common-knowledge level. In that case you should cite the original sources instead. There are just too many secondary sources, and citing only one of them based on your preference is unfair to the others.
However, if the blog contains original results and/or nontrivial efforts towards explaining very complex concepts (to me the criterion should be beyond the understanding of an average expert in your field), I would consider citing it as justified as citing any original work published on a preprint server.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I'll add in to @username_2 and @username_1 excellent suggestions by narrowing down to
>
> *I know some of these functions he didn't make, they have been known if not since antiquity, at least since the middle ages, others he may have come up with or may have heard about them from someone else and just wrote them in his blog*
>
>
>
You may consider a snowball tactic (as normally done in lit review).
For where it might be necessary, apart from citing his blog and following username_1 phrasing approach, you can identify '*peer-reviewed sources*' (as username_2 indicated), through forward/reverse chaining (literature search).
In your case, where the scientific blog did not provide references, you use phrases from the blog and the mathematical functions/concepts for your search.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Just provide a blanket opening disclaimer, similar to the one found in this [arXiv publication](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.0986.pdf) presenting the Pythagora's theorem.
>
> We follow [1], [2] and [3] for the historical comments and sources.
>
>
>
Where [1] [2] [3] are the blog you mention, some wikipedia page you accessed while reading the blog and possibly some other blog.
This is not the most elegant way, but it provides you a quick opening, then you can refer to the blog whenever is needed simply by providing again the reference, for example
>
> the derivative of sin is cos, although the derivative of cos is -sin, which leads to *important and trivial fact* (see [3] for the historical context)
>
>
>
Quite boring, quite lazy, but at least what is not your own product is clearly referenced. In my view, you may get less points because you do not demonstrate independency in presenting the historical context or knowing **why** a common fact is common, but at least you do not loose points or invalidate your thesis because you plagiarized some content from somewhere else...
Upvotes: 2
|