date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2023/06/01
| 417
| 1,618
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my research article in mathematics (number theory category) on Thursday. It has been seven days since my paper status was "on hold". I have submitted several papers before, but this time it took a long time.
I always submit my articles from my supervisor's account (through cross-connection), since I don't have an arXiv account. But I have not seen so much in my previous six articles.
Why is arXiv not taking action further? Should I contact arXiv about the delay?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Let me tell you that I always submit my articles from my supervisor's account
>
>
>
This doesn't sound like a good idea. I can't remember the exact rules regarding submission, but why can't your supervisor endorse you to submit to your chosen arXiv category?
>
> Why is Arxiv not taking action further?
>
>
>
Who knows why.
>
> Should I contact Arxiv about the delay?
>
>
>
If you want to know why, then yes. They may also be able to advise you about how your advisor can endorse you so that you can handle the submissions properly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Since mid-2022, ArXiv takes longer to make papers public. The reasons were not explained. Perhaps, it has something to do with a large number of papers written in relation to Covid-19, and the fact that some preprints were used as "scientific evidence" in public/political discourse before the results were peer-reviewed and "officially" published.
At the moment, it is quite normal for a preprint to be on hold in ArXiv for 2+ weeks. Sit tight and wait patiently.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/01
| 798
| 3,459
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last year, I finished my PhD in history and started a 3-year postdoc at a Russell Group university in the UK. I have a few peer-reviewed articles, but haven't published my thesis as a book yet. When is a good time to start applying for permanent lectureships (tenure-track assistant professorships) in the UK?<issue_comment>username_1: There is never a perfect time. There is always something to finish, or something important to do to boost your CV.
You should start applying when you feel ready, or perhaps slightly before that. The job market is extremely competitive -- it might take 2+ years and 100+ applications to get your first offer. Better start early and learn by doing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The time to start applying is *now*. You are in a strong position, fresh out of your PhD and with a 3-year runway in which to get a permanent job (or find a very good second postdoc that will set you up for a permanent job). This means that for the moment you can be picky and only apply for jobs which you think would be particularly good to have, or for which you think you would be a particularly strong fit. Apply more and more broadly as you get towards the end of your postdoc, until in the last round at the start of your third year you're applying for more or less all the jobs out there (that you would actually take).
I realise that having a book is very important in history, and you may well not be in a position to actually *get* a permanent job until you've published one, but it's still important to start applying regardless.
* Partly this is because, as others have said in their answers and comments, that you will learn how to write applications and how the job market works by participating in it, not by simply spectating.
* Another reason is that there is a lot of randomness in the job market. For some jobs, you might be more competitive than you think, just because of some alignment of circumstances that makes your profile a particularly good fit even if you're relatively junior. Moreover, opportunities which pass you by now may not come again. The job market in the humanities is very tough at the moment, and may even get worse in the future.
* It is also because even if searches are notionally closed, word gets around. Even if a search committee rules you out as too junior, they might still view you as a good prospect, and that could be communicated to other people in the field. Similarly, if you are applying to permanent positions now your letter writers will also have you in mind if the question of hiring comes up (e.g. at conferences—people talk!). It's good for you to be in as many people's minds as possible as a good prospect, even down the line. Starting to apply now sends a message for the longer term.
All this being said, there is a cost involved in being on the job market. It takes a lot of time to prepare good application materials, and more time still to tailor them to particular jobs. This is time you're not spending doing research and publishing your work. That's why I recommended a staged strategy above, starting with fewer applications and ramping up to more as you get closer to the end of your position, when your profile will be stronger and your materials more polished (but also when you'll need to have another job more urgently). There is also an emotional cost, so again, building up over time can help keep that manageable.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/01
| 619
| 2,507
|
<issue_start>username_0: When writing a manuscript, my current practice is to conduct whichever calculations needed in one specific program (e.g. Python or Matlab) then copy and paste the result of the calculation into the manuscript.
This process is prone to errors, and requires maintenance with every update of the calculation results. What process is recommended to (if needed, semi-) **automatically update a manuscript with new calculation results?**
One solution could be to maintain the manuscript with constants with specific names (`CALCULATION_RESULT_1`) and write some dedicated scripts that map these names to a respective calculation , and "render" a manuscript replacing the name with the result every time it is updated. But this seems like reinventing the wheel.
I'm guessing some tools exist for achieving this with LaTeX, but if there are also solution to (us mortals using) MS-word, that would be appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: [Quarto](https://quarto.org/docs/reference/formats/docx.html) uses an easier to use Markdown Language (that can render through LaTeX) and includes an option to output as a Word Document.
Quarto also can use Word-based templates (as well as LaTeX and similar type templates).
Quarto also has a [visual edit mode](https://quarto.org/docs/visual-editor/vscode/) that makes it more accessible to people who do not know Markdown well.
Jupyter Notebooks also have similar rendering abilities that I am not familiar with.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I support username_1's answer to use Quarto. In addition to what he's already said, I use [Quarto in VSCode](https://quarto.org/docs/tools/vscode.html) as something close to an IDE for paper-writing: I write Gnuplot scripts to generate my plots from data, use [RunOnSave](https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=emeraldwalk.RunOnSave) to automatically regenerate output PNGs as I adjust presentation settings in Gnuplot, and then use Quarto in another tab to incorporate the figures into publications (or presentations!!).
But for something less tech-y, you can still use Word and Excel. Word has "dynamic fields" that you can link to cells in an Excel file using [this method](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-surprising-ways-can-import-data-microsoft-word/); just have your Python script regenerate the target Excel file every time it reruns (for example with [Pandas and openpyxl](https://pythonbasics.org/write-excel/)) and you should be good to go.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/01
| 585
| 2,304
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it true that in Germany, after PhD you are required to acquire some kind of tenure track or teaching position before a certain age? Is this the same all over Germany? Does it depend on the field? I could not find any good information or statistics on this online, at least not in English.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no actual age limit.
However, there is a limit of the number of years on which you can be employed in academia in Germany before and after your PhD on positions with a limited-duration contract and that are not professorships - currently that is be six years before the PhD and six years after the PhD. Afterwards, no new working contract can be issued.
This requirement comes from the "[Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wisszeitvg/BJNR050610007.html)", which is a federal law.
So at some point, you have to snatch a permanent position. There are some "glorified postdoc" positions ("Akademischer Rat") that are permanent, but they are rare.
There is an enormous amount of ifs and but surrounding the limits. This includes, but is not limited to:
1. The maximum number of years get extended if you have children
2. The limits are slightly different in the medical domain
3. If the number of limited-time contracts held so far is too high, the administration may block your contract extension.
4. Even beyond the limit, you may still be employable on third-party funding.
5. Unspent parts of the 6 years before the PhD can be also used after the PhD, but times spent on a scholarship (not employment) need to be subtracted first.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_1s great answer: There is an age limit after which you cannot become "verbeamtet" (a special public official status) anymore. It varies from state to state but it is normally around 50.
Almost all professors are beamtet so getting your first professorship later than that might be a problem. There are ways around it but it is a hassle.
Additionally, in some states (Baden-Wüttemberg at least) you cannot get a junior professorship if you have been employed at the university for more than six years after the beginning of your PhD. But this is about your academic age, not your actual age.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/01
| 1,517
| 6,216
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a final year PhD student in Computational Biophysics and I want to explore different opportunities for my future career. I am not sure if tweeting about my job search would be considered bad by potential employers. Is using social media for academic networking and career development appropriate? For further context, I am from India, and could not afford to travel to US or Europe for conferences, which is one way people land Postdoctoral offers. I also do not have many publications (3 first author papers) which is why I believe I have difficulties in getting a position.<issue_comment>username_1: I was in a similar situation about a year and a half ago. My condition was worse than yours as I had no accepted publication, only a couple of pre-prints. I submitted 6 applications via job boards and sent 47 emails before I received an offer.
I agree with the commenters -- a tweet is unlikely to help you land a position. But here are a few things that I did that eventually helped me land a position.
1. If you have a list of potential labs you want to join, follow the PIs on Twitter. If they have a job available, they generally tweet about it (also follow them on Mastodon). Once you start following 15-20 PIs in a subfield, the tweets from their extended network will also appear in your Twitter feed (via retweets, likes, and network effect). So, that might be a good way of knowing if any position is available. Additionally, you can follow these handles on Twitter -- @VacancyEdu, @jobRxiv, @PostdocPal. There might be more, but I used to follow these, and they used to tweet about vacancies regularly.
2. Check University job portals regularly. Most reputable US and EU universities have separate job boards where they post vacancies. Apply to open job advertisements if you are interested in the position. You are much more likely to be considered for a position if the PI is actively looking for someone than if you cold-email them.
3. Finally, if you are really interested in working with someone, send a personalized email. Don't send a generic email; they'll see through it and promptly mark it as spam. Don't get disheartened if you don't get positive responses (or any response at all) from PIs. PIs are extremely busy and get about 30-40 emails on an average day. Many of them require their immediate attention, and as much as they would like to (or so I've heard), they can't reply to everyone. If someone doesn't reply, assume that they are not actively looking for someone and move on. Don't take it to mean anything more.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: What you're describing is quite common nowadays; i.e., posting a tweet that you are looking for a position. While it may not land you the position you want, I don't see how it can hurt, so why not post the tweet?
Some advice:
* Consider the specific culture in your area: are most researchers active on twitter? Or are they more likely to respond positively to a simple email asking to circulate your interest?
* It would help a whole lot if you have an advisor or another trusted mentor who will share the tweet and say good things about you. Is your advisor on twitter? You can even ask them to post on your behalf. Alternatively, if people in your discipline know you, and like/retweet etc., that can help a tweet gain traction.
* Finally, look for examples of others in your field who have successfully posted tweets with high engagement. What did they write? I have seen many candidates do this very successfully, mostly for faculty positions but I think a similar thing applies to postdocs.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: All comments and answers so far basically say that writing a tweet announcing that you're seeking postdoctoral jobs is likely not very *effective* (unless perhaps if you have a following like [this friend of mine with 70,000+ followers on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Astropartigirl); she was already a bit of an academic celebrity and getting paid to give talks even in her earliest years of grad school).
However I'll write a more direct answer to your question:
>
> "How appropriate is it to post a tweet saying that I am looking for postdoc positions?"
>
>
>
It will hardly be deemed "inappropriate". It isn't the conventional way of finding a postdoctoral job (which your question's body already indicates you know), but most potential supervisors will not blacklist you for posting this tweet.
>
> "Is using social media for academic networking and career development appropriate?"
>
>
>
In terms of using social media for ***networking*** (not just announcing job availability), it is quite common in your field of computational chemistry. Immediately I can think of a lot of computational chemistry professors who are very active on Facebook and Twitter, for example, here's just three off the top of my head that have interacted with me in the past despite [my profile only having 71 followers](https://twitter.com/ndattani) because I have barely ever used Twitter):
* <NAME> ([Stack Exchange](https://mattermodeling.stackexchange.com/users/30/geoff-hutchison), [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ghutchis))
* <NAME> ([Twitter](https://twitter.com/A_Aspuru_Guzik))
* <NAME> ([Twitter](https://twitter.com/tiwarylab))
If needed, I could give you a list of 30 more, that would probably be very happy to "connect" with you on social media, but this often means nothing in terms of helping you get a postdoctoral job (the people I know have enough people applying through conventional means, and while some people might be known for re-tweeting their own students' job availability posts, they're very unlikely to do it for someone that they don't know because of the risk on their reputation if you turn out to be a very bad postdoc).
Also, in terms of using social media for ***networking***, I'm reminded of the answer I gave to this question: [Is it acceptable for a student to connect with a professor on LinkedIn?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/149880/93303) Out of 13 answers mine was accepted, and got 24 upvotes and 0 downvotes so it might be helpful to you too.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/01
| 2,124
| 8,447
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing an article from my master's thesis. It is a polished and much shorter version of it, with equal contents. My master's thesis is unpublished by my university, but available from my GitHub.
I am unsure whether to include some proofs in detail in my article, because too technical and not particularly enlightening. I have received interesting suggestions [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/196469/repeating-a-proof-from-the-literature-in-my-paper). It occurred to me that a different option might be to cite my master thesis for such passages, where they are spelled out in great detail.
I see many advantages:
* the thesis is already "peer-reviewed" by my thesis supervisor, a respectable researcher in my area
* it is available online
* I would make the article more readable, without filling it with too many technicalities, which are however available for the interested reader in the master's thesis
* I could include other details and content that would otherwise need to be left out, providing a better service to the community
As disadvantages:
* the reviewers of my article may not consider the thesis as a sufficiently valid source
* the article would become less self contained (but it is common practice not to repeat things already done elsewhere)
* I would be referring to proofs and material which although clear, it is not written and polished with a peer-reviewed publication in mind
* the master's thesis uses a different notation
>
> Is it okay and advisable to cite my master's thesis? Are my concerns valid and are there more?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: >
> I am unsure whether to include some proofs in detail in my article, because too technical and not particularly enlightening.
>
>
>
If the results you are proving are original then you should include the proofs, even if they are highly technical and "unenlightening". For original results the most basic function of a proof is to confirm that the result is definitely true. This function is necessary even if the proof itself does not assist in illuminating the result. The usual place for such a proof would be an appendix to the paper. The main reason you would want the proof to be part of the article is that it is a neccessary part of the demonstration of a result at issue, and a outside source on GitHub could change or be removed in the future. If the results you are proving are not original then you have more latitude; in this case you could reasonably cite relevant proofs in other sources, including the proofs in your Masters thesis.
From your linked question, it appears that the theorem at issue here is an adaptation of another published theorem, but your version is not a special case of the latter so it is not already proved. In view of that, I would recommend keeping it as part of your paper. If you are concerned about the technicality and length of the proof, put it in an appendix instead of the body of the paper.
Finally, since you have just finished your Masters thesis, you should consider going back to your former advisors to get their advice. They are already familiar with the material at issue and they will be in a good position to give advice on the best place for the proof.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> It occurred to me that a different option might be to cite my master thesis for such passages, where they are spelled out in great detail.
>
>
>
This can be a good option, and is actually very common especially if you are dealing with a page limit on the present article, or if the present article is focused on something else (e.g. application of the ideas, or summary of their impact), such that the formal development would be a distraction.
However, there is one important caveat: **in order to publish and cite the master's thesis, you should put it up via a permanent location such as [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/) or a similar service.** A GitHub repository is unfortunately not sufficient for this, as GitHub files can later be moved or deleted.
Addressing your specific points: for the "advantages", I agree with all of them, except:
>
> * it is available online
>
>
>
By academic standards, this isn't entirely true for the reasons above -- the thesis may be available online on June 1, 2023, but may not be available in a decade or a 100 years from now unless it is put on arXiv.
Addressing the disadvantages:
>
> * the reviewers of my article may not consider the thesis as a sufficiently valid source
>
>
>
This probably isn't a problem; perhaps surprisingly, many good papers cite unpublished or un-peer-reviewed work, including preprints, invited papers, and even personal correspondence.
>
> * the article would become less self contained
>
>
>
This is true, but could be an acceptable drawback for your use case.
>
> * I would be referring to proofs and material which although clear, it is not written and polished with a peer-reviewed publication in mind
>
>
>
This is also a valid concern.
>
> * the master's thesis uses a different notation
>
>
>
This is probably the concern I'd be most worried about. Are you confident about the results you are using? Do they translate correctly to your new setting?
Overall:
>
> Is it okay and advisable to cite my master's thesis?
>
>
>
Yes, it is certainly OK. Whether it is advisable is somewhat of a judgment call, depending on the material. I would encourage you to talk to your masters advisor to get feedback on the present paper structure.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You do not need all the thesis, but simply some proof/results.
Put everything useful from your theis in one or more Appendices to your paper. Eventually, you can cite your thesis in the introduction or wherever needed as
>
> Results obtained by Leonardo (2022) are presented in Appendix A-B-C
>
>
>
One may wonder why cited results are presented again in the appendix, but then when one reads the full citation being a Thesis (unpublished, but usually thesis can be found after enquiring the university library), the reader will be glad they can check the appendixes,
Appendices can be extremely concise, you need no frame nor introduction, simlpy put what is needed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: From the point of view of a reader of your paper, your masters thesis does not yet exist as a peer reviewed publication.
>
> the thesis is already "peer-reviewed" by my thesis supervisor, a respectable researcher in my area
>
>
>
No, it's not; this is not how the peer review process works. For starters, no journal would ask your supervisor to be a reviewer because of close personal/professional connection. And then, accepting a thesis does not mean that it is accepted on publication level. Neither is your supervisor responsible for pointing out issues and making sure they are corrected in the way peer reviewers should.
>
> it is available online
>
>
>
As pointed out by other answers already, GitHub is not good enough for this and arxiv or similar would surely be better.
However, a better option would be that many journals offer to add online supplements to a paper, which will be included in the peer review process. This is a possibility to write a shorter and more readable paper but still to provide the details to the peer review process, and have them accessible online in an "admissible" place.
>
> the article would become less self contained (but it is common practice not to repeat things already done elsewhere)
>
>
>
As your thesis doesn't count as a publication, if you write a paper for publication based on your thesis, material in your thesis doesn't count as "already done elsewhere".
Final remark: You may want to take into account the general publication culture in your field and in the journals you consider. For example, in (pure) mathematics, often more proof detail is expected than in statistics. You may ask your supervisor about this. Also have a look at how other authors did such things.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Go ahead and reference it. <NAME> certainly referenced his
dissertation in his CACM paper; it would be dumb not to.
If you can get your department to house it, that would be preferable
to github.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20040708052627/http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/cmt-55/lti/Courses/711/Class-notes/p94-earley.pdf>
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/06/01
| 1,568
| 6,235
|
<issue_start>username_0: When do people normally graduate from a PhD? What is the normal range for postdocs, and the first research group leaderships or assistant/junior professorships?
Some context:
I completed my PhD which took 9 years at the age of 36, but I also worked full-time (I have 14 years of experience in academia and -mostly- in industry). The predefined duration of a PhD is 4 to 6 years in my home country since it consists of the US-like course/qualification/thesis phases, but also longer durations are not uncommon. AFAIK in some places, an engineering degree (bachelor's) takes 3 years, a master's 1, and a PhD 3. That would be extremely unusual in my home country.
I completed one postdoc fellowship that didn't help making a great network, and I ended up unemployed. I am currently trying to decide what I should do, another postdoc or going back to industry (which I don't want much). But I feel that I might be ignored because I am 38 with a PhD that took extremely long, from somewhere without a great reputation (Turkey). And my work experience, though it included research team management and grant applications etc., might also be ignored for academic jobs.<issue_comment>username_1: In the US:
In my experience, there is at least a 10-15 year range of possibilities. First, there is the common crowd who start a PhD straight out of undergrad, who are typically 22-23, and so graduate around 28-29 on average. While these may be around half of students (in my experience), there are also many who start a PhD after a gap year of a few years, or even after a decade or two of working in industry. So as a result, you have many who are graduating at 31-32, and then the (smaller, but certainly not unheard of) group who have returned to complete a PhD after working, and graduate in their late 30s or 40s.
Additionally, there are those who take 7-10 years for their PhD rather than the 5-6 average, so that adds another 2 to 5 years.
After graduation, some go directly to a faculty position, so they may start a faculty position as early as age 28-29. While others do a postdoc, or two (depending on the field), in which case you start a faculty position in your early-to-late 30s. And again, there are those hired to a faculty position after a stint in industry, so these can be 10-20 years older.
In short, I hope all of this makes it clear that looking at age is a rather pointless exercise! There are people of all ages at all academic ranks. All that matters is that you are taking the right step in your career for what you want to do next.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In Europe
It actually depends on the country. In the U.K. for exmaple, most people go straight from 3 years undergraduates, 1 year masters and 3-4 years phd, meaning that most people graduate around the age of 25 - 29 depending on when they began University. In other European countries like Germany the age range is higher and varies. So they have 3-4 years undergraduate, 2 years of masters and 3-5years PhD. However, most Germans go for an overseas experience before they begin university so the age range could vary from 27-36.
Answering your second question about whether industry or academia. My straight up verdict will be go to industry for two main reasons. Firstly you get a permanent job, which can help you plan your life better and you earn more money, which can also help you buy a house faster if you have not yet done so. The main problem with persisting to remain in academia is the unavailability of permanent roles. So you may have to continue to do a series of short-lived postdoc in which you will travel from city to city or country to country and that makes settling down difficult and also, the salaries are not that great and in some places you don’t even get a relocation allowance, meaning that all your savings may go to paying for your relocation bills.
Finally, which you stay so much in academia, without getting a permanent role, you turn to be less attractive to industry and also getting a permanent academic job.
Side comment
Regarding the statement you made about your country of origin, as fair as that may sound, I think you should stop seeing yourself as a victim of your origin. Competent people will always find a job regardless of their origins. Keeping such a mindset is not very healthy especially if you intend remaining in academia. You may easily get depressed from thinking that you are not getting a permanent job because of your origin meanwhile the job market is tight for everyone.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: As others have said, this depends greatly on country and I would think even more so on the field. And, like for all other things, there is always a spread so there is very little value in fixating yourself on absolute age, which you cannot control anyway.
I know you are not asking what I am writing next, but... I would try to be honest with yourself and ask what you really want. Now and in the immediate future, for starters, as well as in the long run.
Do you value certainty and long-term planning or do you just want to enjoy what you are doing for the next couple of years? Either is fine, it's your life/career, and this will affect your choices (and their associated consequences).
You say you don't want to return to industry: why not? What is it that makes you lean towards academia?
You also mention professorship: What is it about academia that attracts you?
You mention a long PhD, which is not a deal breaker in and by itself, but also a postdoc that didn't really help to build a network. So how do you see yourself positioned? And where do you want to be/go next? Do you want to be in your home country or abroad?
As hard as it is, face the reality of the situation and see what you can do under the given circumstances: if you want to continue in academia, you either will need a strong network (in a given geographic area or scientific field) so you will be in the know of who is hiring/where opportunities for employment are, or - if you strive towards full independence - a solid scientific track record with good visibility in your field, solid publications/output and some sort of funding track record.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/02
| 1,171
| 5,214
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm asking this question in the context of *purely publicly-funded academic research*, which might perhaps make answers rather straightforward.
So, I wonder to what extent the outcome of a scientific investigation, a research activity, could be unnecessarily biased or influenced in an undesired way if overarching interests of any kind (e.g. political, commercial, personal/social, etc.) are in the way of the process. Sure, the *scientific method* might prevent such biases to a good extent. However, should the mere choice of research questions and hypotheses along the way, the research strategy so to say, be protected from such influences? For instance, should we deny questions such as "Is this relevant for current industrial practice?" or "Does this relate to a currently hot practical problem in the way practitioners view it?".
My current view goes in the direction that the aforementioned interests should not only be declared (which is mandatory anyway) but be assured to not influence academic research as good as possible.
My question is somewhat philosophical and, having found [that question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/158418/do-scientific-methodological-beliefs-affect-the-topics-that-are-investigated), I was unsure whether or not to ask it here. Yet, public funding agencies and universities have gotten rather pushy about telling researchers to address relatively short-term practical problems (not least because of attracting third-party funding from sources typically associated with quite focused interests). Hence, I believe, a plurality of answers to this question could be useful for others. Answers that go beyond a "yes or no"-nature and discuss the "how can ... be kept free of ..."-variant of the above question are much appreciated.
(I'm happy with closing the question again if folks feel this to be a non-SE question.)<issue_comment>username_1: In a democracy public funding and conditions attached to public funding are determined by the people (usually indirectly through elections of politicians). That is as it should be.
There is a good case to be made for funding fundamental research, i.e. research that does not have an immediate application. But it is also a trade-off: any euro/dollar/yen/hryvnia spent on research is a euro/dollar/yen/hryvnia not spent on better childcare, better healthcare, better roads, better bombshelters. It is ultimately up to the democratically elected officials to make that trade-off.
It is our job to make the case for fundamental research as good and as clear as possible, but also to accept democratically made decisions.
So a certain amount of political influence is unavoidable and desirable if you take public funding. If the politicians decide that certain topics are a priority and direct extra funding to that, then we may or may not agree but it is the politicians job to make such decisions.
That does not mean that all political influence is OK. It is for example not OK if politicians currently in power abuse their position to gain an unfair advantage over the opposition. It is not OK if they dictate what acceptable conclusions from your research should be (if you know the conclusions of your research before doing it, then it isn't research).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally it does not need to be free of non-scientific interests, but funding systems are actually designed to hold things apart.
In many countries with good research funding, there are two general types of funding schemes that are both financed by public money: **bottom-up** and **top-down** funding.
Bottom-up funding is typically handled by an institution that is relatively free of political influence but gets a defined budget from policymakers. They distribute their budget to project applications without constraints regarding the topic of the research, and the evaluation is typically completely handled by the research community as well. An example of such a funding organization in Europe is the European Research Council. One can probably say that bottom-up funding is organized to be mostly free of non-scientific interests.
In top-down funding, policymakers define a research topic based on a perceived societal need and start a funding program for that. Researchers can apply with projects, but of course they will need to argue in their application how the project will address the defined topic. This type of research funding is typically handled by ministries or other agencies engaged by policymakers, and in that way policymakers can usually retain a good degree of influence on the evaluation process.
In any case, there are good arguments for having both types of funding, and I think it is well accepted that society indeed needs both types of research funding. The relevant question is then **which share of the public research money should go to which type of funding**. Academic researchers would probably prefer to have a larger share in bottom-up funding (unless their field is expected to get a lot of top-down funding), while other stakeholders might prefer more top-down funding, but in the end this needs to be decided by a policital process.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/02
| 2,193
| 9,437
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently enrolled on an MSci in Biosciences and am planning to apply to PhDs starting next year. I want to use my final summer to practise my maths skills which are severely lacking.
Because I have just three months I don't want to attempt something unrealistic, I just want to study the most important things that will enable me to work in the lab to conduct basic scientific research (measurements, concentrations, dilutions?). So far my plan is to work methodically through the book 'Fundamental Laboratory Mathematics' by <NAME>. I don't know if this is the best way because I don't really know what is expected at PhD level.<issue_comment>username_1: *Because I have just three months I don't want to attempt something unrealistic, I just want to study the most important things that will enable me to work in the lab to conduct basic scientific research (measurements, concentrations, dilutions?).*
I am not familiar with your book, but did skim it it's TOC online.
The book seems reasonable.
I would also ask your professors in your current program as well as your future program what they think you need.
Ask professionally and politely and most likely, they will be impressed at yourself awareness and desire to improve a missing skill on your own (or a least view your actions favorably).
They know your program and its needs better than anyone on this site.
You might look at books for general audiences like [Essential Math for Data Science](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/essential-math-for/9781098102920/).
Last, I hopefully you are not too stressed out about this.
Doing anything is better than doing nothing, so you're off to a good start.
In general, graduate faculty view self initiative as a positive attribute.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: (In many graduate programs) After you are admitted you may have a chance to take an undergraduate course in math if needed to fill in gaps in your background. So don't get stressed out if you cannot finish everything in three months.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The list is something like this:
* Reasonable competence at arithmetic. It helps to be able to do math in your head so you don't have to keep looking for the calculator in the middle of pipetting.
* Basic (middle school) algebra. Often when preparing solutions, you will end up with simple linear equations and have to solve for x.
* Probability and statistics are useful when designing and interpreting experiments and dealing with experimental error. This is technically not something you use *while* doing the experiments, but at "the drawing board", and you can collaborate with someone who is knowledgeable about these topics if you are not.
* Understanding logarithms and exponents is useful when working with enzyme kinetics, quantitative chemical reactions (pH) and exponential growth (microbe cultures and quantitative PCRs). There are usually software tools available to do this stuff for you, and doing these types of calculations "by hand" gives noticeably worse results, so it's not so much a matter of "having math skills" as understanding the general principles.
* If you work with things like biophysics, biochemistry, protein folding simulations, microscopy then a strong knowledge of modern physics (electromagnetism, quantum physics, molecular forces, fluid dynamics) will be very helpful.
* If you work in high-throughput areas like genomics, a strong knowledge of probability, statistics and combinatorics will be very helpful.
* If you work in a highly computational field, good knowledge of programming, machine learning, data analysis, AI, high performance computing will be helpful.
* If your work is about developing new devices, good knowledge of electromagnetism and electronics will be helpful.
In other words, for just "general" lab work, just middle school math is basically "enough". If you know some basic stats and probability, you're golden.
If you're going into a specialized field, you may need a lot more, but then you would know this already when going into that field.
Note: I have completely ignored things like ecology here, because the question specifies molecular and cell biology.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I am an ex-physicist who has reviewed\* several PhD memoirs of friends who were biologists. There were "experimentalists" and "theoreticians" in that cohort.
By far what they were lacking most was knowledge of **statistical methods**. Some were so bad that I mentally could not cope to go through the whole thesis. The defenses were very successful.
So learn statistical methods from a **purely practical angle** if you want to be ethical in your research. There are so many butchered statistical results that yours will probably slip through so no need to be overly stressed. Note that the ones who will read you are likely to have the same understanding of statistics as you.
This said **practical** statistical methods are really worth learning so that you know if you are going in the right direction before someone else does and then a lot of unrecoverable work (or time) is lost.
The silver medal goes, ex aequo, to **calculus** and **differential equations**.
Again, we are talking practical stuff here, not theory.
With calculus, you will be able to understand how various functions behave and what to look for to understand their behaviour. Expected level is high-school.
Differential equations are, I think, how the world is described (but [they](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/) do not want us [to know](https://www.wired.com/story/living-in-a-simulation/)). Sooner or later you will find a "change of something is a function of the something", or twice this. I do not think you should learn how to solve them (this is tricky to say the least, in physics we used to have a year-long course just on differential equations). You should really try, however, to find someone knowledgeable so that you can get their opinion about feasibility/countability/etc.
Story time: my wife ended up with a [stiff equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_equation) when working on enzymes and attempted to resolve it with (I forgot the name of the program they were using in the 90's at her biology department). It was a disaster, mostly because no one in the dream of them could detect a stiff equation (they did not know about this beast) and it would have taken them eons to compute them the way the intended. She turned to me (tadam!) and I did the computation for her and guess what - she found out that the "standard behaviour" that was in use at the time had an issue because the equation was not solved correctly. Then came the Nobel prize and everything (well, it would have come if we did not switch to different lives after that)
The bronze (and special prize) goes to **learning to code with Python**. Look up [Jupyter](https://jupyter.org/), spend 2 afternoons learning Python, then a week to learn Pandas and you will have an incredibly powerful tool in your toolbox. You can become the hero of the team with this.
---
\* and have ben traumatized by
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: There is no one size fits all answer here. It will depend on your research project (which can still change direction even after you have started, especially if you are talking about fundamental research in the area of molecular and cell biology) which and how much math you will require.
I would argue, though, that things like concentrations and dilutions are an absolute must to be able to work with when you are in the lab. Even if nowadays you can look everything up online or have a website/program do the math for you, it is very useful to know and understand what you are doing so you can also develop a feel for when you are off by an order of magnitude. So yes, this would be basic biology applied mathematics that you need to know or your lab work will be slowed down and or suffer on a daily basis. That being said, studying this stuff over the summer will only get you so far: you become much more skilled by doing this in practice. Research internships typically prepare you a bit for what life at the bench will be like in real life.
All other things you should probably aim to learn on the job - applying basic statistics (and consulting with a statistician when you aren't sure), more advanced problems when they arrive (do you need to do quantitative modelling for your project? do you need to understand statistical significance of large genomics data analyses or population genetics? Totally different questions and different expertise required). That's the beauty about scientific research and a PhD in particular: You continue to learn every single day. Also don't forget that science is becoming increasingly collaborative, so find colleagues/collaborators with the skills you lack so you can complement each other.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I would approach this in an empirical manner. Contact your Ph.D. program and ask them what they expect. You can brush up in specific areas where you do not feel confident.
Learn from people who properly use mathematical, statistical, and computer science tools. Always ask them why a particular tool is relevant and how to use it properly. Always be open to learning how new tools can help you in your research.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/03
| 731
| 3,219
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my master’s thesis four months ago. And now, my supervisor sent me an email with only 10 pages corrected. She informed me that she will send me the feedback by parts!
I am really concerned about this as I am afraid references would all be in the wrong order when I join things together. One of her requirements was submitting the thesis as a whole and now she will correct it part by part after four months.
What should I do in this case?<issue_comment>username_1: I'd say don't worry too much. This is somewhat common practise. Keep in mind that your supervisor might be engaged in other tasks (research, proposal writting, teaching, ...) so sending you feedback bit by bit is beneficial for you as you receive it earlier and thus have more time to incorporate it. So the supervisor might act like this to do you a favor.
Also: I'd suggest using a reference manager (e.g. Zotero). References an their order should not be a problem when using a good software package taking care of your references.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From your supervisor's perspective they are probably doing you a favor: Since they are too busy/cannot manage to correct (or give feedback on) the thesis as a whole, they give it to you in parts whenever they have time.
What is important, however, is that you discuss with your supervisor what the planning/schedule is. Regardless of whether you have a fixed/hard deadline or not, try to make arrangements that work for both of you (and realise that even agreed upon deadlines may turn out to be flexible/need to be moved around when other priorities arise on your supervisor's end - your thesis is understandably and rightfully your main focus but your supervisor probably has tons of other things on their plate).
Ultimately, a supervisor typically also won't want to stretch out this phase on purpose, so communicate and try to sort out what your and their responsibilities and possibilities are here.
As for the references: I don't think this needs to be connected to when or how you receive feedback. As mentioned in another answer: Do yourself a favor and work with a reference manager from the start. It is a bit of a learning curve and hassle to get started if you've never done so, but you will never want to do it in any other way ever again. Your supervisor might advise you here as well.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I would be far more concerned by the four month delay than by the piecemeal nature of the feedback.
If there is an agreed-upon time frame for the completion of your thesis-- which means feedback, revisions, whatever presentations are necessary-- and the time-frame supports your schedule for graduation, great, fine.
If not, that is your real problem, not the niggling details of how you manage references, citations, etc.
The management of those niggling details is an annoying but very real fact of life, both in academia and in the rest of the world for people with higher academic training. Your advisor shouldn't be (and almost certainly isn't) making life intentionally difficult for you in this regard; nevertheless, it's good experience to learn to deal with it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/03
| 659
| 2,858
|
<issue_start>username_0: It has come to my attention, that some of the professors I studied with as an undergraduate, plagiarized their lectures.
In some cases, it was word for word. In fact, they did not even explain it any better or add anything, merely translating or in some cases just copying the original text.
The books in question were not cited as a source for the lecture, rather as a suggestion of additional "literature" for the lecture, most of the time, among many other suggestions, and not on top of the list.
I reside in Germany.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no expectation that lectures consist only of original work. (Otherwise, most of us lecturing would be doing a very poor job). Embedding others' works and good examples is just part and parcel of creating good lectures. If I prepare lectures, I often read many books and some journal articles. When it comes to writing the slides, I would have difficulties finding the correct attributions. After years of teaching the material, the provenance of the material taught can become difficult to reconstruct.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In a word, only if the course material is not put across adequately in the lectures.
In some IT modules like databases and SQL, I think it's common enough to basically cog a whole (well known) online course, transfer it to overhead transparencies and extemporize lectures over it in class.
Before the web, it was common for lecturers in physical sciences, and engineering particularly, for a lecture course to essentially follow the layout and example problems of one or other common textbook. From my experience in freshman economics lectures, a similar process was applied although with a much wider range of extemporizing and time distribution on the various concepts.
This works out fine where the plagiarized lectures/textbooks are well synthesized, structured and presented; yet predictably not so well when they are not.
I would regard some areas of physics to be hard to wrap one's head around and dumbly following textbooks and online courses may make it harder still were students to see the lectures as the furthest horizons of communication on these topics. To that extent a lecturer's own perspective and input is important - though so many renege on this aspect of their appointment.
In the latter case - and obviously in cases where the lecturer shows utter contempt for the task of lecturing - I would approve of **the class** (or a strong number of it) reporting the lecturer in question - **not a single member of the class** since cynical class members may try to avoid publicly supporting the complainant to curry favor with the poor lecturer.
But I can't see any benefit in reporting a lecturer simply because he/she uses an existing course of lectures and where they are adequate for purpose.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/04
| 1,723
| 7,098
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently (a couple of months) started a Ph.D. in Germany in the field of reinforcement learning, which I try to combine with Optimal Control to give guarantees and /or analyze performance and convergence properties and the like, or at least that was the initial idea.
The thing is, I am not enjoying the experience so far. I was never interested or very good with theory and math proving, but I was applying to many machine learning Ph.D. programs last year, and that was the only one I got accepted in (or at least the first). Because the salary is tolerable and the overall program prestigious, I thought I might as well take the risk and plunge in and push myself out of my comfort zone, even though I was, and still am, very uncertain I would succeed.
I do not like it so far for several reasons, which I will provide for context. First, the lab itself: While the other Ph.D. students are likable people, and I have no issue with them, they are all essentially doing theoretical research in control theory, and one tries to combine it with deep learning. Besides that, there is no machine learning or even much data-driven work. Ergo, I am in a lab where I neither understand nor care about anyone's research, which feels isolating and, quite frankly, useless. There's also the issue of teaching assistance, which I have been told takes substantial time ("We don't have time to do research over an entire semester" time). I can experience it for myself already as I am supposed to be a TA at a theoretical optimization course with material I don't understand.
Then it is the issue of the supervisor. The lab's PI is a super senior Prof with tens of thousands of citations and over 10 Ph.D. students. Mine is a super junior Professor who just started on the tenure track a little over six months now and has two other Ph.D. students. I feel our mindsets don't match my Prof's because he's way too theoretical. At the same time, I am much more software-oriented and even feel he is trying to micromanage me by telling me how many hours I should spend on X course, always letting him know what I am working on, etc.
He is even opposed to the idea of me doing projects outside of work, like an entrepreneurship incubator, because "before I have results, this kind of work, as well as networking, are useless," which I honestly find idiotic. He even lectured me when I let him know I would join, even though I had asked him before applying because he said I should listen to him more and tell him these things like I would tell my friends and some other nonsense. While the program will last around six weeks and require my presence for six days, I still do not think that reaction was warranted or useful. Truth be said, I dislike him increasingly as time passes, and I am afraid I will hate him in a few months.
Finally, there is the issue of the work itself. I just don't find myself excited to try to make sense of papers all day. It feels dull and meaningless. I am still figuring out my exact research topic too. Still, I am thinking of going into more causality-based learning, which I am surprised the Prof sort of accepted after several attempts because while he constantly says he is flexible, the first few times I suggested some topics beyond the very initial rough ideas we had sort of agreed on, that is the theoretical analysis of RL algorithms, he has several times said he is more interested in staying the course on those initial ideas and not exploring more, which feels constricting. I mean, the whole point of a Ph.D. is to explore relevant topics freely, isn't it? Right now, I feel less free here than when working in the industry.
Therefore, and because I do not believe those problems can be overcome, or even that I want to overcome them, I have come up with the following plan: I will give this program some time so that I am confident beyond reasonable belief about these observations and to figure out I indeed do not enjoy or am good at this kind of thing. I want to clear any doubts I may still have while trying very hard to make it work and not have any thoughts about quitting without a fight.
I will minimize my time toiling on my Ph.D., working diligently during my 9-5 but no more. Instead, I will dedicate significant time to upgrading and expanding my data science and software engineering skills and preparing for technical interviews. Then, if in one year the situation has not dramatically improved, I will apply for jobs in the tech area in the US and quit the program after I have secured an offer. If I am asked by employers why I quit the Ph.D., I will sell it as the sort of thing I just realized is not for me, and I want to create value, work with code, etc.
What does the community here think about my thoughts and plan? Is there anything I need to improve or rethink?<issue_comment>username_1: We can only go with what you wrote here, and given that: if you do seriously want to give it another year to decide whether this is for you, then you do need to reflect on and rethink how you view things.
If you are not interested in what anyone else is doing, if after six months you qualify suggestions from your supervisor as idiotic and if you deem a core part of academic research (reading papers) as dull AND if you are convinced that a PhD means unlimited freedom for a PhD student, then you are likely fully unaligned with your PI and your surroundings. It sounds like neither the lab nor the topic nor perhaps a PhD in general is what you want.
Bring this up with your PI as soon as possible. They will want to know your perspective and - especially if they are on a tenure track- there is as at least as much in it for them to make your PhD a success as it is for you. If you cannot come to a better understanding of your respective expectations and responsibilities then don’t prolong your PhD - this is not failure on anyone’s end, sometimes things simply don’t work out and it is in everyone’s interest in the long run to acknowledge that - as hard as that may be and as painful as some of the conversations you are going. to have may be.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Finally, there is the issue of the work itself. *I just don't find myself excited to try to make sense of papers all day. It feels dull and meaningless*. **I am still figuring out my exact research topic too**.
>
>
>
Voilà!! You unearthed underlying issue.
For a PhD, give this careful thought and work around and towards it.
Obviously, it's a continual learning/discovery.
In research, you need to make sense of (relevant) papers. Find a strategy that works.
You may check out
* [<NAME>' summarising research papers](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sEL2QbzQRHQ)
* [<NAME>'s How to read and take notes like a PhD - easy, fast, and efficient](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GrC2vS9j30g).
There are tons out there.
Whatever you do, if you desire interest continuing your PhD, don't get to the point of *hating* your supervisor. You might just get *self blocked* and wander off ...
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/05
| 1,216
| 5,260
|
<issue_start>username_0: There is a theoretical computer science paper that is published in a very good conference. The paper essentially comes up with an algorithm and an explicit function (mentioned in the paper) of some 20 parameters, `f(r1, ..., r20)`, which ties the performance guarantee of their algorithm to the value generated by this function.
For example, if they find some values `r1, r2, ..., r20` where their `f` function gives a result of 0.8, then their algorithm performance is **at least** 0.8.
The problem is that in the paper, the authors claim there exists a set of 20 `r` values where `f(r1, ..., r20) >= 0.8`. However, they do not write down explicitly in the paper the 20 `r` values that they used.
I tried using an optimizer to find 20 values where their stated function might indeed give 0.8 **but I cannot find any**. The closest I got was 0.74. **This is not an improvement over prior algorithms.** I emailed the authors 2 weeks ago for the 20 `r` values that they claim to have used, but they did not reply.
My question is, what options do I have? When should I send another email? If they do not respond, do I have any options? To be frank, I'm surprised that none of the reviewers asked for the 20 parameters that they claim to have used to be written explicitly in the paper.<issue_comment>username_1: The conference format historically has not served theoretical computer science well. Some thirty years ago, I heard from well-known practitioners in the field that many published results were false, including sometimes their own. I hope things are better now. So, it is quite possible that there is an error that went unnoticed, because no referee had sufficient time to check the results.
Unfortunately also, making results replicable is still not always standard in CS. I certainly cannot find code for work I did some twenty years ago. This is definitely getting better.
The reward structure of computer science also does not help, as tender loving care of work stops after publication. After publication, the team often goes its own ways, and if the main work was done by a graduate student, that student might become hard to find after graduation. Also, results like those obtained by using an optimizer might not be reproducible because notes were not taken sufficiently accurately.
You end up now with a lot of scenarios that explain why you do not get an answer:
1. Nobody feels particularly responsible to talk to you as the person that made the discovery is elsewhere.
2. They genuinely believe in the result, but cannot reproduce it themselves because they forgot to write down the parameters used or because there is a newer version of the software used and the older one is gone.
3. They are embarrassed at having been found out making a mistake.
4. They are busy with the end of the quarter or are already in summer mode.
5. Each author thinks that some other author should answer.
It could also be of course that the fault is entirely yours for using the wrong tool or using it in a naïve manner.
In an ideal world, you would spend more time trying to follow their procedure, and, if you cannot reproduce their result, submit a comment to the same conference. But we are not in an ideal world and conferences are bad at accepting rebuttals and do not have letters to the editor.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: To add to the otherwise excellent answer of @username_1, in general people tend to be extremely slow to react in such cases, if they even react. I have also sent many messages about supposed errors/missing details during my early years, sadly nobody ever answered. If you "need" your result for your research I would say be on the cautious side and assume the "real" result is the one you can reproduce yourself.
Another point, also important, is how old is the paper. The older it is the lower the chance of response for myriads of reasons. A real possibility is that the result in the meantime, correct or wrong, might have been improved by another paper which makes the whole situation "waste of time".
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Wait for two more weeks. Two weeks is nothing for busy people.
If you fail to get these parameters in the long run, you might want to publish this as a small technical report, citing the paper with the missing parameters. Before publishing it (or even writing it), talk to your supervisor, as this might be perceived as a hostile act. Also share a draft version with the authors first to give them the change to provide the right parameters. They might be more motivated facing a negative follow-up article.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Probably the best thing to do is write a research article countering their claim, say they may have been mistaken given your new research, and try to just get the real result out there.
Its better as an opportunity for yourself to show that you can get the right idea. Not everything in science is accurate first time, we need people to notice incorrect claims and then to publish this information as a letter to the editor, or even journal article if there's a lot to say. This does happen even with the most famous scientists, many years later, and has an impact on the field.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/05
| 745
| 3,178
|
<issue_start>username_0: This autumn, I applied for an MPhil at Cambridge as an international student. Here are some key points:
1. Only 10% of MPhil students in my area of study get full scholarships.
2. I stated very clearly when I applied that I won't attend if there's no funding for me.
3. So the department knows they are sort of taking a risk on me.
4. I plan to apply for a PhD program next year at the same department with the same proposed supervisor.
I was made a conditional offer of admission and I accepted it without knowing my funding situation because all the funding decisions are made later than the offers of admission are sent.
Now that it is June already, it looks like I didn't get any funding. Not a problem, I'll get my master's degree from elsewhere. I have looked through Cambridge's website and they pretty much expect you to accept and then withdraw if you don't get any funding. My department also won't be surprised if I withdraw, because I was very straightforward about it from the get-go.
I am still worried a little bit, because I plan to apply for a PhD program next year and contact the same professor as my potential supervisor. I want to part on as friendly terms as possible. How should I go about this? Should I write to the department? To the professor? What should I say?<issue_comment>username_1: In your offer letter (or the like) it should give a point of contact to accept/reject the offer. That is where communication should be directed at the very least. I would consider including the professor in this communication regardless.
**Now, let us be clear:** *Graduate school admissions are not a charity.* This goes both ways. We should all get this. You were (rightly) clear that your acceptance was contingent on being funded. No one should be surprised that you are rejecting an acceptance offer.
I myself rejected a poorly funded offer for my MSci and then ended up attending the same university that I had rejected two years prior, this time for my PhD. (My funding was much better for the PhD offer!) No bridges had been burned.
As always, be respectful and be clear. Any reasonable professor/university will be completely fine with you rejecting an unfunded offer and then returning later to have a further conversation about PhD funding. And, at least for me, if I had a potential advisor who was turned out of sort because I did not take an unfunded offer, that is not an advisor I want to select for any further potential work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Professors are human beings (although sometime they try hard to hide this fact), not humongous figure of infinite knowledge and peculiar sensibility.
If you had personal contact with the professor, then write a nice, formal, **concise** email to them, saying thanks for the potential opportunity and mentioning you are looking forward to have future chances of collaborating (because you are, and a PhD is a learning process for the student **and** for the professor).
If you had no contact with the professor until now and all the communications were with the "department": such an email will be felt as spam. Think twice about that.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/05
| 1,410
| 5,986
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got interviewed for a research position in statistical epidemiology in a London uni last month. It went well and I got the conditional offer at the end of the interview. I got in touch with my PhD supervisor and secondary advisor. Both of them said they were more than happy to provide references and congratulated me on my new job.
I started my new job today. When chatting with my boss, he mentioned that my supervisor wrote a glowing letter for me. However, my secondary advisor was critical of me not meeting the deadlines and lack of diligence. This temporarily happened during my second year when I got Covid complications and had to take a 3-month leave in the end. But my medical circumstance wasn’t mentioned in his letter. My new boss sort of joked about it and asked if my secondary advisor and I had some personality clashes. However, I cannot remember any clash between us. I didn’t see him as frequently as I met my main supervisor. He were polite to me all the time. My new boss then went on saying it was a bit funny that these two references contradicted each other in this way. One saying I took initiatives and met the deadlines and the other saying I didn’t. Fortunately, my main supervisor was a much more prestigious professor and has known me much longer. So they believed her words.
I was reflecting on my previous behaviour and research and wondering what I have done (except having Covid complications and more or less unable to work for 3 months) to make my secondary supervisor critical of me. I was a member of UCU and went on strike a couple of times during my PhD years over pay and working conditions for teaching and research assistants. My secondary advisor did ask me about this and told me he wasn’t in the union. Could it be a possible reason? In the meantime I wonder if it is normal that your current boss leaks your reference details to you.<issue_comment>username_1: Who knows why your secondary supervisor was so critical. Presumably, from their perspective, what they wrote was true. It isn't uncommon for people in those positions to be nonconfrontational about references/letters of recommendation, even if they don't think they can write a good one. Maybe you overestimated their enthusiasm and they felt obligated to write *something*. Also, in my experience, many people are not great letter writers. Often what is perceived as a "balanced" or "unbiased" assessment is read as very critical. There can definitely be a "secret language" to recommendations and if someone isn't careful a "good" (but not "great") recommendation can come off as lukewarm or even negative.
In any case, I would bet that your new boss was trying to tactfully say "don't use this person as a reference in the future". They may also have been giving you the opportunity to explain, but since you were already hired, I think it was more a courtesy heads-up. I wouldn't think about it too much since it seems like that letter was not reflective of your work and personality (based on the glowing review from your direct supervisor).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You cannot know why your secondary supervisor was critical, and quite frankly, it is not useful to speculate.
However, the fact that your new boss shared this with you is very beneficial as it means you can avoid using the secondary supervisor as a reference ever again. It's clear regardless of what they wrote or why, it hasn't been received positively.
Focus instead on maintaining a collegial relationship with your primary supervisor so that they will feel comfortable providing another glowing reference in future (should you ever need one again).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I was a member of UCU and went on strike a couple of times during my
> PhD years over pay and working conditions for teaching and research
> assistants. My secondary advisor did ask me about this and told me he
> wasn’t in the union.
>
>
>
Which is an information you did not ask him. As you wrote in the answer, he was a polite person. So instead of telling you are an unreliable idiot for taking part in political activities, he simply told you that second part ("I am not an unreliable idiot and therefore I am not in any union").
He then went on expressing his deep displeasure in a "polite" way in the reference letter.
Please note that I do not share the view of the reference letter, quite on the contrary, I have been judged being an unreliable idiot for my political involvement during my career (sometimes in a subtle way like OP has been, sometimes with much less hypocrisy).
The human mind is a big mistery, always capable of surprising you in the worst possible sense.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Without asking your second supervisor, you will never know why they wrote you a less than glowing review. Without asking your new boss, you will never know why they chose to share this information with you.
But if I were in your position, I would infer that your new boss has done you the kindness of quietly letting you know which former supervisor you can count on for good reviews and which you can't. Even if that wasn't the *intent*, that is definitely they *effect.*
I would also infer that your suddenly asking your second supervisor what you did to cause this would alert them to the fact that your new boss has had this conversation with you. And to be absolutely clear on this: This is one reason *not* to ask your old supervisor. It's your decision, of course, but I would nod solemnly to your new boss, thank them for the information, keep it always in mind, and move on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> In the meantime I wonder if it is normal that your current boss leaks
> your reference details to you.
>
>
>
I don't know if this is "normal", but this does not look ethical. I would think a person providing a reference expects their reference to be treated as confidential.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/05
| 1,877
| 8,153
|
<issue_start>username_0: My paper got accepted normally (e.g., with neutral to positive reviewer rating) to a conference.
I have noticed that, I always get to present (oral or poster) on the last days of the conference, and worse, at the last session.
Predictably, I did not get a large audience, and got fewer questions/useful feedback compared to papers presented on the first, and second day of the conference.
Does that indicate (low) perception of my paper by the conference organizer?
It is almost as if they want to conceal my paper. The conferences are ranked typical B-level with ca. 50% acceptance rate.
What can I do?<issue_comment>username_1: I very much doubt that the organizers want to conceal your paper. If they thought that they would have rejected it.
I suspect that although it cleared the cutoff point for acceptance, the organizers thought it less interesting or more specialized than papers scheduled earlier. You might be able to infer that by looking at the rest of the schedule.
As for what to do? Approach other participants whose work touches yours. You may learn something; that may encourage them to come to your talk. Try harder to connect your work to questions people at that conference care about.
That said, congratulations on the acceptances.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It seems very unlikely that there is a conspiracy to bury your results at the end of conferences. I think there are a few possibilities:
1. Your work was considered less interesting and therefore not worth a "prime-time" spot. It's impossible for anyone here to determine this and, honestly, its not worth thinking about.
2. The conference organized posters/presentations based on some other factor like order of submission, name of author, topic, etc... Anything could have landed your presentation at the end - someone has to be last and it might not have much to do with quality.
3. Related to 1, are you sure your presentation was *really* best suited to a particular conference? Its always possible that your work is actually quite good but not 100% on topic (or of broad interest).
4. Bad luck. Unless you have a trend spanning dozens of conferences, maybe there is nothing here. We tend to focus on extreme outcomes and you're more likely to notice when you are at the end (especially since you think this is a trend) than when you are stuck somewhere in the middle.
I don't actually think there is anything for you to do. It's not even clear that there is something wrong in the first place. You probably can't go wrong with @username_1's suggestions. But really, just focus on producing quality work and identifying conferences which are best suited to sharing that work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: How do conferences group papers?
(Based on my experience and therefore subjective)
Usually, the programming committee has a meeting to discuss referee reports. On rare occasion, last-minute reviews are being done by PC members to balance the fact that reviewers did not respond timely or in order to understand the review reports better. Before the meeting, the PC chair might divide the submissions into three groups: definitely accept, where the PC is expected to rubber-stamp this decision, definitely do not accept, for instance, because none of the three reviewers voted for a straight accept, or as desk-rejects, and the papers that ought to be discussed. In parallel, the number of papers to be selected is determined.
When the work is done, the Chair with or without help groups papers together by threads. Some papers will cluster naturally, and sometimes they will not, leading to "Odds and Ends" sessions. After the sessions have been determined, they get assigned to dates in the calendar. Even if there is no Best Paper award, the papers that according to the PC and the reviewers are or were candidates, have their session placed in the prime time, usually a session after the key-note talk. Everything else gets a spot assigned usually without much deliberation. Odds-and-ends sessions without a strong paper and without strong cohesion tend to get assigned last session in a day.
Now, big conferences like VLDB and those where the tracks are more independently organized work differently.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:
It is unlikely that someone is out to get you, because the decision making process is too distributed for that to work easily. It might be a sequence of bad luck (statistically slumps are likely to occur) or it might be that your work does not cluster well with other work.
Unfortunately, the conference method of disseminating information has draw-backs, and you are suffering from one. If you look at the history, conferences started out much more as an exchange of ideas before the developed into the main dissemination method of Computer Science.
If conferences accept your papers, someone thinks your work is worth-while. However, even if you end up presenting in a prime spot, your audience tends to be already overwhelmed by the program and you might not get a substantially better reception.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Your question has just made me doubt any conference I have presented at - I have been in the last session so many, many times and I always considered it just bad luck (getting a talk in the first place was the exiting bit).
While some of the other answers have already given you a nice perspective regarding the considerations that many conference organizers may have had when they were putting together the schedule, let me also offer my perspective, having now organized multiple different conferences and symposia, big and small: in none of these cases have we put together the schedule based on whether we considered talks selected from abstracts to have lower or higher impact or significance. As an organizer, I want my last session to be as strong as the first, if possible, because nobody wants an empty room towards the end of the conference (what has happened therefore: putting an awesome keynote speaker or exciting invited talk at the end to make sure nobody heads home).
Even when picking best speaker awards I've often been in last minute hushed discussions as we considered a talk from one of the last sections without a coffee break in between the session and the actual award ceremony.
I do agree that it sucks to be on the last day because you lack the free conference wide exposure you might get by presenting on the first day, but there are other ways to put yourself out there: sit with people you don't know at breakfast/lunch/dinner, be active and introduce yourself to people at poster sessions etc. etc.
So, don't get worked up over it, don't read too much into it and just focus on the contents of your work and on genuinely getting to know people in your field.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Mostly, my experience agrees with the existing answers by [username_4](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196951) and [username_3](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196948) — schedules are decided by a variety of concerns, with “quality” far down on the list if it’s considered at all.
The one common exception, in my experience, is that **committees often aim to put *strong* talks in certain key time-slots** — speakers we expect to give a compelling talk and/or attract a large audience (which mostly coincide). These slots typically include each day’s opening talk, especially the first day, but also often each closing talk as well, especially the last day’s, to make sure the conference ends on a strong note, and also to motivate participants to stick around to the end. An unpopular schedule on the last afternoon is a recipe for audience attrition.
So a few of the *strongest* (maybe c.10% of all talks) often have their quality taken into account in their scheduling; but for the placement of the rest, quality is essentially irrelevant to the schedule. In particular, I’ve never known a committee speak in terms of trying to “bury” bad talks, or consistently put weaker talks into later sessions; so I wouldn’t draw any bad conclusions from the scheduling you describe.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/06
| 1,506
| 6,274
|
<issue_start>username_0: My background -
I performed very poorly in my undergraduate CS degree. It was due to a mixture of family circumstances and severe OCD/health anxiety. Anyways, I performed very poorly, graduated two years late with a disgustingly low 65%.
I went on to do my masters in a fairly decent UK university (ranking 250-300). Graduated with distinction. Now have about 2 years of research experience in a field I am very passionate about (speech processing). I have published about 3 papers and have good reference letters from the supervisors.
Over the past year I have applied to various PhD programs very relevant to me. I tick all the boxes for their requirements. However, I have only got rejections. In fact, I did not even get a single interview. I'm starting to think the admissions committee don't even bother considering the rest of my application after seeing my undergrad scores(I do fulfill their entry requirements though).I am applying for funded places since I'm too broke to afford paying for a PhD.
Should I even bother applying again this year ? Am I doomed forever because of my poor performance in undergrad ? Should I give up ? If not, what can I do to boost my chances ?<issue_comment>username_1: Are you doomed. Nope. Keep calm and keep going at it.
Applying for PhD comes with being proactive. Are you engaging prospective supervisor beforehand. It's not uncommon to turn down doctoral application where there's no one on the committee or in the school/dept willing to take on. (NB: I'm aware in some places, prior engagement/interaction isn't required/mandated).
How are you developing your research proposal.
Even for some funded that don't require research proposal, how enticing and aligning is your (one pager) research brief and/or research statement and/or personal statement?
You indicated you have good references from your supervisors. You can start there.
* See if they are willing to take you on.
* See if they can use their network.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I can assure you that your undergrad performance are well obliterated by your following master degree experience and your research-working experience.
I would go as far as saying as "don't put your Bachelor degree marks, do not discuss them in your cover letter". It's so long ago that who cares. And if someone is so pedantic to care about it ... maybe better not to work with such people so interested in your remote past.
Your undergrad experience may play a role in some individual comitee decisions on which you cannot have a control, but that are not statistically significant and they will not be the cause for the (statistically normal) rejections you are receiving.
Did you check how many Master degree are awarded each year? and how many PhD's positions? Not all master graduated will pursue a PhD, but not all people pursuing a PhD will be given the chance to pursue one.
However, since you are so motivated to pursue a PhD, what can boost your chances of being admitted is **not** waiting for an open position, but buliding your own. Go after all possible funding chances you can apply to.
ERC, <NAME>, Scolarships, not-for-profit foundations, consulates and embassies, tech-companies consortium, leave no stones unturned.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know how it works in the UK, but where I'm from, you'd be hard pressed to get into a PhD program with weak undergrad grades *unless* you
1. hugely turned things around during your Master's *and*
2. somebody at the university you are applying to vouches for you (i.e. expresses interest in supervising you / funding you).
Consider this: most students that apply for PhD programs at halfway decent universities have excellent grades from at least halfway through undergrad. Their Masters also probably went well enough, too. You need to therefore win points in some other way. Use your network; if nobody can take you, ask them to introduce you to somebody that can. And if it doesn't work out, remember that you don't need to do a PhD right out of a Master's. You can go to industry and come back later, and at that point, your CV will stand out for different reasons.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I take it you are an "international applicant" as per UK norms. That makes things harder, as the funded positions are generally capped at 30% out of all seats for international candidates.
Possibly apply for a RA role at one of the unis then try converting that into a PhD. (A very common path for many candidates in the UK). The RA positions generally pay more than enough for rent/food and living expenses in general.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I strongly doubt that admissions staff are going to be influenced much by undergraduate performance when you have since completed a Masters degree with distinction. Performance in the higher-level award is usually the thing that academics would focus on in assessing performance, because it is more recent and because it is with respect to courses that are more advanced. This is the same reason why we typically assess people with an undergraduate degree on their results in that degree, without worrying about their grades in high school.
Based on the accomplishments in your mention in your question, you sound like you would be competitive for entry into a PhD program. Keep applying to programs with funding at universities of interest to you. Entry to a PhD program can be very competitive at some universities, but your background sounds sufficient to warrant putting in applications. Ultimately, you will need to decide if there is a limit to the number of unsuccessful applications you want to make, but I see nothing in the information in your question that would make your application uncompetitive.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: No one really cares about your undergrad performance. No one. Not even your supervisor. The only important thing is to get the job done.
Also, most people do not need phds. And it is wiser not to waste your early years trying to get one. It is always possible to get one later down the line as a side hustle thing. But it is much harder to later join the workforce without any prior non-academic experience.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/06
| 1,169
| 5,016
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to ask what the best way to proceed could be when submitting job applications given my health conditions: currently a postdoc in physics, I am affected by essential tremor (ET), the most common movement disorder, that in my case amounts to shaky hands and arms and probably affects voice also. The problem is greatly amplified by stress and nerves, while when I am calm basically I look completely normal. You can easily imagine how this caused me to battle with non-motor psychological consequences revolving around the anxiety and embarrassment that such a problem causes.
Given that I cannot avoid appearing scared during a job interview due to the aforementioned health problem even though I am as nervous as anyone else, and in view of the bias against lack of confidence and communication skills, that are inevitably damaged by ET, I feel like no one could take my application seriously without knowing in advance what I am battling with and trying to filter out the appearance to focus on the substance of what I say only.
Should I disclose the problem prior to applying to a position? Are there inclusive policies in universities or related scientific facilities that give me a fair chance of getting a job? I feel a bit dizzy thinking about my future, considering also that my tremors can only get worse with time (I am only 27).
Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: I think that there is limited harm in being upfront. Ultimately this is something that you have to deal with daily and you can choose how open to be about it. If letting people know why your hands shake makes you feel more secure or confident, then go for it. Depending on where you are, you probably have some legal protections either way. As long as you have documentation supporting your diagnosis, it should not negatively impact your job search. More importantly, you presumably want to work in an environment that is supportive and accommodates you willingly. Being upfront prevents any misinterpretation or bias (which you are worried about) and has the added benefit of weeding out any departments/companies that would not accommodate you (or do so begrudgingly). Although it's worth mentioning that since you don't seem to need any special accommodations, I don't see most employers caring.
In the real world, you may not have the luxury of being picky about where you work. At least in the US, you don't really need a reason *not* to hire a candidate. Certainly there are companies that will try to avoid hiring someone who will require accommodations (despite the fact that it is unethical/illegal). Only you know your specific situation. This *should* not impact your job prospects but it *might*. Whether or not it would affect you more than appearing overly nervous is impossible to guess.
With that in mind, before doing anything or worrying too much, maybe you should consider having a trusted 3rd party (maybe your physician?) assess how severe your tremor is to the untrained eye. It's possible that a non-medical person might not even be aware of it during an interview. You could avoid the issue altogether if this is the case.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, I think you should directly address the issue at the interview stage (not at the application stage) in a casual way. I say this because I have a bit of a condition where my neck becomes very red and blotchy when I have too much adrenaline/am stressed. This has concerned interviewers in the past because they think I am having some sort of allergic reaction. I bring it up now because it is much more awkward when they bring it up first.
To address the issue casually, I would say (or perhaps pre-email) something like, "I want to give you a heads up that I have an essential tremor condition. It is usually not noticeable but it can act up when I get a burst of adrenaline - which sometimes happens in exciting situations like an interview. You'll notice my arms shaking, but its not anything to worry about." Here, you will notice that I talk about adrenaline and excitement, not stress or nervousness. I have found this phrasing has a more positive connotation.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: At least in Europe, many universities start asking about health conditions already during the submission stage. I understand that this is more targeted towards more impactful disabilities which may require special care or fall under a legally protected class, but I would probably bring it up there already.
Additionally, what I would do is email the chair shortly before the interviews and inform them (in a very curt manner) about your condition. Your goal is not to make this seem like a big deal (it isn't), but to clarify upfront (before a narrative can form in the heads of people). The tone I would go for is similar to how I would inform them about allergies in preparation of joint lunches / dinner - it's an FYI first and foremost, not an apology.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/06
| 924
| 3,944
|
<issue_start>username_0: After having conducted interviews for a postdoc position, what could be the reasons for which the academic researcher involved in the hiring process would ask for a second meeting with an applicant? The applicant was not informed during their first interview about the possibility of a second meeting.<issue_comment>username_1: I think that there is limited harm in being upfront. Ultimately this is something that you have to deal with daily and you can choose how open to be about it. If letting people know why your hands shake makes you feel more secure or confident, then go for it. Depending on where you are, you probably have some legal protections either way. As long as you have documentation supporting your diagnosis, it should not negatively impact your job search. More importantly, you presumably want to work in an environment that is supportive and accommodates you willingly. Being upfront prevents any misinterpretation or bias (which you are worried about) and has the added benefit of weeding out any departments/companies that would not accommodate you (or do so begrudgingly). Although it's worth mentioning that since you don't seem to need any special accommodations, I don't see most employers caring.
In the real world, you may not have the luxury of being picky about where you work. At least in the US, you don't really need a reason *not* to hire a candidate. Certainly there are companies that will try to avoid hiring someone who will require accommodations (despite the fact that it is unethical/illegal). Only you know your specific situation. This *should* not impact your job prospects but it *might*. Whether or not it would affect you more than appearing overly nervous is impossible to guess.
With that in mind, before doing anything or worrying too much, maybe you should consider having a trusted 3rd party (maybe your physician?) assess how severe your tremor is to the untrained eye. It's possible that a non-medical person might not even be aware of it during an interview. You could avoid the issue altogether if this is the case.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, I think you should directly address the issue at the interview stage (not at the application stage) in a casual way. I say this because I have a bit of a condition where my neck becomes very red and blotchy when I have too much adrenaline/am stressed. This has concerned interviewers in the past because they think I am having some sort of allergic reaction. I bring it up now because it is much more awkward when they bring it up first.
To address the issue casually, I would say (or perhaps pre-email) something like, "I want to give you a heads up that I have an essential tremor condition. It is usually not noticeable but it can act up when I get a burst of adrenaline - which sometimes happens in exciting situations like an interview. You'll notice my arms shaking, but its not anything to worry about." Here, you will notice that I talk about adrenaline and excitement, not stress or nervousness. I have found this phrasing has a more positive connotation.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: At least in Europe, many universities start asking about health conditions already during the submission stage. I understand that this is more targeted towards more impactful disabilities which may require special care or fall under a legally protected class, but I would probably bring it up there already.
Additionally, what I would do is email the chair shortly before the interviews and inform them (in a very curt manner) about your condition. Your goal is not to make this seem like a big deal (it isn't), but to clarify upfront (before a narrative can form in the heads of people). The tone I would go for is similar to how I would inform them about allergies in preparation of joint lunches / dinner - it's an FYI first and foremost, not an apology.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/07
| 898
| 3,824
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in my first year phD in pure math but I am getting bored, I think a phD in computer science would be a better fit. How should I go about in order to switch the program?
Is it possible to do both in the same time? There might be a bit of overlap between the two.
I hear that there is a lot of work in the computer science side (publications, conferences, building things,…) and I like to be productive and compete with others.<issue_comment>username_1: Contact suitable supervisors in the computer science field.
Talk to your existing supervisor - they would rather you move and eventually complete than fail or drop out.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: How to switch depends on where you are, but if it would be at a different institution, then it would probably entail going through the full application process again. Even at the same university, it is likely that CS is in a different department, but it is easy to ask them what you might do.
It is unlikely that you can (or should) try to do both at once. It will get much harder as you go on. In the US, you would need to pass two sets of qualifiers most likely.
Yes, there is a lot of work in any field. But it differs by field. In CS you probably want to attend as many conferences as you are able. Not so much in math.
There might be some overlap between fields, depending on your CS focus, but probably not a lot between pure math and CS. If you are bored, talk to a faculty member or two about how to get un-bored. There may be projects around that would interest you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I will attempt to answer your question based on my experience; well, not really my own experience but something similar as you read on.
I am a PhD in Computer Science (specializing in ML), and my wife is a Mathematician with a PhD in Pure Mathematics (primarily, Number Theory, Representation Theory, and such). Trust me when I say things are not as easy in our respective fields as they may seem. I can undoubtedly say that Pure Mathematics is no fun. I have seen her frustration when she sits on a single theorem or idea for months, and nothing comes out of it sometimes. So I do understand what you mean when you say, "I am getting bored." However, she always tells me that that is what keeps her going and keeps her love for mathematics. She also tells me, and I too know that Pure Mathematics is often called the "Recreational Mathematics". It is what these mathematicians do for fun sometimes. They do have beautiful applications in real life; but that remains least of their concern. So, I think you should be proud that you are getting to do this. Maybe, to get your motivation back in your field, you could read or watch some documentaries on the great mathematicians: Ramanujan, Hardy, Godel, Fermat, etc. Their lifes were worth reading about.
On the other side, that is, Computer Science, probably the closest (not too much!) to Pure Mathematics that you could do, is Theoretical Computer Science, that involves a lot of exciting research on Prime numbers, automata theory and computation, logic, compilers, etc. If you are interested in probability and statistics, you could try your hands on the theoretical aspects of machine learning. However, from your questions, I guess that you may not have been trained in computer science. That could make your life a bit difficult if you switch entirely. As other answers suggest, it will depend a lot on administrative factors too if you plan to switch anyway.
That said, you could see if you could work on an area that uses ideas from pure mathematics to solve (open) computer science problems.
Last, remember, it is okay to feel like "I don't belong here". But that is okay, and just hang in there; just try to do something every single day.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/07
| 1,762
| 7,218
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph. D. student in computer science. I often cite surveys and find them very useful. By surveys I mean cataloging the state-of-the-art of all scientific efforts made in a single area. Not necessarily drawing conclusions from them nor going farther, though it could be.
However my advisor is not keen on working on surveys. This leads me to the following questioning:
1. Is publishing surveys scientifically relevant?
2. Could it be scientifically irrelevant but interesting in my academic development?
Tangent question: is there a different approach to working on and publishing surveys than regular papers? Can I publish surveys in any regular journal or conference?<issue_comment>username_1: Reviews are very relevant. It is rare that a single paper solves a big problem (it is common to afterwards assign that honor to a single paper, but that is another problem). In practice, many people and groups work on that problem, publish partial solutions, and in doing so collectively move forward. In this process it is very important to regularly take stock. This is what a review is for.
However, this also means that reviews (that get published) are often written by people who were closely involved in this process. They know what happened, not just what got published. They tend to have a better overview of the field than an outsider. So it is unusual for a PhD student to get a review published, which could be an explanation of why your advisor is not keen on you trying this.
In the end, if you want to know what your advisor is thinking, you will just have to ask her/him/them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm a computer science PhD candidate graduating soon that published a review article. What I thought would be a relatively simple process turned into a massive effort, where I spent hundreds of hours writing and shepherding the manuscript through revisions. Writing a review for yourself is one thing; writing a review that others would want to read is totally different. It probably didn't help that I work in an interdisciplinary area, so there were multiple perspectives I had to address.
>
> However my advisor is not keen on working on surveys.
>
>
>
My advisor was ambivalent about me doing the review, and having gone through it I am too. I'm biased, but I think my review article was ultimately worth it and provides a unique contribution to the field. However, it consumed way more time than anticipated, taking my attention away from doing more "traditional" CS research that is typically expected for graduation (e.g., developing methods/algorithms). This has made things slightly more complicated for justifying that I should graduate to some members on my dissertation committee.
>
> is there a different approach to working on and publishing surveys than regular papers? Can I publish surveys in any regular journal or conference?
>
>
>
Yes, surveys/reviews are different from regular papers. Journals will typically have information on the types of papers they accept on their website.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Often, in CS, survey of state-of-the-art equate **review papers** with underdeveloped analysis/discussion. Their value to the body of knowledge are *eroded*.
Reviews are critically important in contributing to the body of knowledge (when they so).
---
It is not uncommon for students (and researchers) in computer science to punt the phrase state-of-the-art. In my view, it gets often abused.
One often sees *summary* ***collation*** of articles/previous works. These sort of '*survey*' are nothing but **reviews** in the true sense of things. At least, that is how I presume they will be classified in most journals.
>
> Is publishing surveys scientifically relevant?
>
>
>
Yes they are. Take for instance in IS (information systems), a closely related sibling), **reviews** are often used to take stick if the *past* and forge a direction forward.
>
> Could it be scientifically irrelevant but interesting in my academic development?
>
>
>
In computing, they are relevant. For instance, one gets to know how an algorithm got to be in the first place, how it evolves over time, what others are innovating with it and what possible direction is evolving. At times in computing, algorithms, new models, theories et al are worked on in tangent. Not that that is completely bad. IMHO, synergy and add-on could be beneficial. Obviously, that doesn't stop new approach.
>
> Tangent question: is there a different approach to working on and publishing surveys than regular papers?
>
> Can I publish surveys in any regular journal or conference?
>
>
>
Some journals welcome **reviews**. So yes, they can be published in journals (as well as accepted in conferences).
One question one should oneself is, what contribution am I making? What am I contributing to the body of knowledge?
The collations (the *survey*) is more like *data/findings* that deserves analysis/discussion. Those state-of-the-art are the *state* of things that should be discussed.
* what is the art to non-discipline person and to CS folks
* what was the state of things and what is the state of things
* what can be postulated about the art and future state
* what is the golden thread
* what is/are the new frontier(s) of the *art*?
Survey of state-of-the-art shouldn't be left as **collation**. They should be engaged as **reviews** as it's done in other fields of research.
---
I'll end with reference to a frontline CS journal on *survey of state-of-the-art* - the [ACM Computing Survey journal](https://dl.acm.org/journal/csur)
>
> ACM Computing Surveys
>
> *2021 Impact Factor: 14.324 (ranked 3/109 in Computer Science Theory & Methods)*
>
>
>
* *These comprehensive, readable surveys and tutorial papers give guided tours through the literature and explain topics to those who seek to learn the basics of areas outside their specialties in an accessible way. The carefully planned and presented introductions in Computing Surveys (CSUR) are also an excellent way for researchers and professionals to develop perspectives on, and identify trends in complex technologies*.
* *Contributions which bridge existing and emerging technologies (such as machine learning) with a variety of science and engineering domains in a novel and interesting way are also welcomed*.
* *Contributions are intended to be accessible to a broad audience, featuring clear exposition, a lively tutorial style, and pointers to the literature for further study*
>
> Information and guidelines for reviewers
>
>
>
* Papers for ACM Computing Surveys must be of high quality ...
* There are four main ingredients to an acceptable paper:
+ Technical quality is high.
+ Relevance to significant areas of research or practice is high.
+ The level of general interest is high.
+ The presentation is effective.
* Few papers excel in all of these, but a substandard level in any is sufficient ground for rejection.
* papers devoted primarily to presenting a survey or tutorial that include a new result to organize and convey the material in a better way are within the scope of the journal.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/07
| 811
| 3,613
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted the paper to an Elsevier journal and one of the reviewers gave his review in just 5 days.
However the paper still appears to be under review.
I have 2 questions:
1. Does the fact that the reviewer submitted the review in 5 days mean that they just rejected the paper?
2. If reviewer 1 rejected the paper, shouldn't the journal reject the paper instead of waiting for the comments of the second reviewer?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. It's not possible to determine what the recommendation from a reviewer is just based on the number of days a reviewer spent on the paper.
2. This is not a question, but your opinion. But an editor might still ask for revisions or accept the paper even though one reviewer recommends rejection.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your question is based on a wrong assumption, namely that fast reviews mean reject. I myself have accepted reviews and finished the review a day later with an accept recommendation. This was because I happened to have time that day. As a reviewer, you cannot spend an inordinate amount of time on a review. In Computer Science, if I am familiar with the subject, I can usually finish a review in a few hours. I usually wait for a night and a final second look before I submit a review. If I am not that familiar with the area, then of course it takes longer. I am not holding myself up as a good example, but just to assure you that a positive review might be done within five days based on my own experience.
If your field is Mathematics and you write in the typical terse style, then reviews are just bound to take longer, because reading Mathematics papers involves much more work. But then, when I was still a working Mathematician, the (bitter and cynical) joke around my colleagues was that the average number of readers of a Mathematics paper was less than 1.0, including reviewers and editors. Even in this case, if the review request arrives to the reviewer who has time (or wants to procrastinate grading, ...) the reviewer might do all the work within a few days.
Finally, you also assume that a single negative review will sink your paper. Even at a very prestigious journal, where one negative review will usually lead to a reject, the editor reads the reviews, reads the self-assessment and comments to the editor (such as, "I think this is non-sense but I have not done Beginning of Life Biology for decades and am now working in Experimental Archeology of South New Zealand, maybe you confused me with my cousin"), and only after looking at all the input from the reviewers will the editor make a decision.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If the first review was negative and the editor is going to reject on that basis, then I agree that they should do so as soon as possible. This not only saves your time but will save the other reviewer (who probably hasn't even started their review yet) some work.
However, there are several other possibilities.
1. The first review was not actually negative. It sometimes happens that a review request arrives when I have no other active requests, I have some time available for reviewing, and the paper is easy to read. A quick positive review could happen in those circumstances.
2. The editor hasn't had time to look at the first review yet. Editors have busy and less-busy times too.
3. The editor has looked at the review, and although it was negative it was not very convincing (perhaps the reviewer does not seem to have read the paper properly), so they intend to ignore it if the other review is thorough and positive.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/07
| 750
| 3,356
|
<issue_start>username_0: How do I know if my study uses the case study approach or narrative research approach?
What factors do I have to take into account to differentiate between the two?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. It's not possible to determine what the recommendation from a reviewer is just based on the number of days a reviewer spent on the paper.
2. This is not a question, but your opinion. But an editor might still ask for revisions or accept the paper even though one reviewer recommends rejection.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your question is based on a wrong assumption, namely that fast reviews mean reject. I myself have accepted reviews and finished the review a day later with an accept recommendation. This was because I happened to have time that day. As a reviewer, you cannot spend an inordinate amount of time on a review. In Computer Science, if I am familiar with the subject, I can usually finish a review in a few hours. I usually wait for a night and a final second look before I submit a review. If I am not that familiar with the area, then of course it takes longer. I am not holding myself up as a good example, but just to assure you that a positive review might be done within five days based on my own experience.
If your field is Mathematics and you write in the typical terse style, then reviews are just bound to take longer, because reading Mathematics papers involves much more work. But then, when I was still a working Mathematician, the (bitter and cynical) joke around my colleagues was that the average number of readers of a Mathematics paper was less than 1.0, including reviewers and editors. Even in this case, if the review request arrives to the reviewer who has time (or wants to procrastinate grading, ...) the reviewer might do all the work within a few days.
Finally, you also assume that a single negative review will sink your paper. Even at a very prestigious journal, where one negative review will usually lead to a reject, the editor reads the reviews, reads the self-assessment and comments to the editor (such as, "I think this is non-sense but I have not done Beginning of Life Biology for decades and am now working in Experimental Archeology of South New Zealand, maybe you confused me with my cousin"), and only after looking at all the input from the reviewers will the editor make a decision.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If the first review was negative and the editor is going to reject on that basis, then I agree that they should do so as soon as possible. This not only saves your time but will save the other reviewer (who probably hasn't even started their review yet) some work.
However, there are several other possibilities.
1. The first review was not actually negative. It sometimes happens that a review request arrives when I have no other active requests, I have some time available for reviewing, and the paper is easy to read. A quick positive review could happen in those circumstances.
2. The editor hasn't had time to look at the first review yet. Editors have busy and less-busy times too.
3. The editor has looked at the review, and although it was negative it was not very convincing (perhaps the reviewer does not seem to have read the paper properly), so they intend to ignore it if the other review is thorough and positive.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/07
| 2,475
| 10,036
|
<issue_start>username_0: I asked the same [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/193943/how-to-handle-a-coauthor-who-is-very-late-in-finalizing-a-research-paper) 3 months ago. I am a Ph.D. student in mathematics and am suffering from a problem. My coauthor has not responded for 2 months, and as a result, I am unable to submit the paper without his consent. It has been almost seven months since I completed the paper and sent it to him. I am requesting that he proofread and make any possible language changes before submitting it to the journal.
When I asked the same question three months ago, I got some of his reply, and he promised to finalize the paper (i.e., proofreading and language) in 15 days. But again, two months passed with no reply, even after four emails were sent to him. A total of seven months passed in this way.
He is a professor. We live in different countries, so no physical meeting is possible. We just met once at a conference. Despite our verbal agreement to work together on the project, let me tell you that I did all of the writing and editing for the paper, and he only assisted with proofreading, which revealed some errors that I then fixed on my own. I still offered him the authorship, and he accepted it eagerly.
Since it has been seven months and I have already mentioned it in my profile about the title of the paper, I have even cited that paper in my other new paper and have used some concepts from that paper, so I told him that even you have less time then at least submit the paper in some database like arXiv, etc. But he is telling, people can steal the work from arXiv, and that is why he doesn't prefer arXiv. I don't find it a very reasonable comment, though. In my opinion, he is very good in terms of ethics. He has good publications in reputed journals in mathematics. But very irregular in cooperation.
What choices do I have? Without his approval, I am unable to submit the manuscript to arXiv or a journal. However, I can't just leave the work undocumented for a very long time. To claim our work, it should at the very least be stored in ArXiv. Besides that, I am a Ph.D. student and I need publications.
Any suggestions would be helpful.
**Edit**: I live in Asia and he lives in Europe. So it not economically suitable for me to set up an in-person visit. This situation occurred before as well, he will not reply one or two months and then suddenly replied. He even proposed a post doctoral position to me if possible. But the question is even if he busy, he can just tell me that I will do it later so that I can be assured that he is in collaboration. About 6 months ago, i said him that my supervisor has read my paper and proofread on the language part, should I offer my supervisor an authorship, but he said not but we will acknowledge your supervisor. I agreed with him. This shows he doesn't want others to involve in the paper, but he is not doing the final action, completely keeping me immovable.<issue_comment>username_1: Practically, to ensure you’re getting through
* Check your coauthor hasn’t changed jobs (google & look at recent papers) and thus primary email address.
* Email them at every email address you have for them
* Email them from a different account - sometimes email from some domains can be silently blocked by university mail filters
Assuming you are
* Presumably your colleague is busy so write a short message that’s quickly actionable
* Ask directly whether they still wish to participate in the project
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I am sorry you're in this situation. It happens, for various reasons, that one collaborator holds up a project for a very long time (maybe they're a perfectionist and always take a long time/very busy right now/depressed or having health issues/etc). Unfortunately, there's no ethical way to proceed without some sort of consent from them. The most one can do is minimize their responsibilities and encourage them to speed things up, and in the future try to be more careful about selecting coauthors.
Some concrete ideas in your case are:
1. Talk to your advisor for advice. If your advisor (or some other mentor) has a good relationship with this person, they may be able to encourage this person to speed things up and/or have specific advice on how to deal with them.
2. Set up an online/phone conversation with your coauthor. Then you can try to (i) convince them why it's important for you to get this out soon and (ii) come up with a plan together to complete a draft expeditiously. Maybe you can get them to agree to a deadline where you will submit in say 2 months as is if there's no more feedback.
3. Set up an in-person visit to/from this person for a few days so you can hammer out the paper then.
4. If it really seems impossible to complete this in a timely manner, can you move some things from this paper to your new paper (or just repeat them)? It's also possible to cite a result and say this will be proven in a separate paper.
5. An extreme option is ask your coauthor to publish part or all of the paper without them if they won't agree to any of the above. I don't know how reasonable that is in your situation (if they pointed out mathematical errors that you couldn't have found without them, that might be worth co-authorship, and in any case you did agree to co-authorship, so that should not be revoked unless all parties agree), but it will be harder for you to maintain a good relationship with them.
6. Work on other things and try not to stress out about this project so much.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It is saddening to hear this. However, you should try contacting your co-author and have a lengthy discussion with him regarding this.
Try:
* emailing the individual constantly (Every few days)
* contacting his institution and doing a welfare check
* find his other contact information
* e-mail them from a different account
* setting up a physical meeting with him
* discuss if he wishes to participate in this project anymore
Good luck to you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: It's one of those *tough luck* in collaboration.
I'm in the same situation currently. I presented a paper in Dec 2020. Around May 2021, I received an invite to submit an extended paper to a A\* in my field. I reached out to my MSc advisor (of well over a decade, more closer to 2 decades).
Long and short, after submitting for first round, we need to submit for 2nd round. It's been close to one and half years now. Fortunately, I got him engaging this week! Hopefully, he should read the revised manuscript this week and revert to me.
>
> What choices do I have? Without his approval, I am unable to submit the manuscript...
>
> *Any suggestions would be helpful*.
>
>
>
So in my case, though still rocky, the following have been of assistance
* engage proactively and professionally on email, ensuring you keep ***all emotions*** out
* leverage on alternate channel. I've had Zoom/Teams session. At times, I initiate this. It doesn't matter how long it last: 10, 20, 30 mins, 1 hrs.
PS: we haven't had one for a while now
* leverage on alternate space to *communicate* and keep it short, direct, focus.
In my case, I initiate Signal and do the *gentle nudging*
Do check that you still have current contact. At times, people move on.
In my case, I was fortunate to know when my coauthor change university last year.
---
[Edit]
I'm in agreement with @username_1. He suggest ... *short message that’s quickly actionable*.
That has worked for so far on this long arduous journey. Still worked last week which resulted in my coauthor promising to read through today. I'm *keeping fingers crossed*.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You want the simplest possible request.
I would take the proofreading out of the request. Proofreading is not a job for a senior scholar. If you need proofreading, you should work with your main supervisors to find a proofreading service. Personally, if I have to proofread for someone who is not a native English speaker, that can take a lot of work. You said in a previous comment that the co-author mentioned wanting to proofread. This is probably because he is not happy with the current state of the writing. If you can improve the writing, you can make his task easier.
Then you can assure the co-author that all you need him to do is a quick read to make sure the changes you made based on your previous technical discussions are correct. This is the fastest way to get him to approve the submission.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: I had the exact same experience with my PhD advisor. Once per week I will write an ask if she had the time to check my manuscript. The authors were 4, 3 supervisors and me (PhD student that continued as a postdoc at her lab). It was the main publication of my PhD. Very few meetings, not answering on my emails. At some point she corrected it and then I realized that she just moved text (deacription of compound a placed for compound b, mix and match of time points). Clearly she did not read it (November 2022). I managed for her to submit it when I started calling after my contract has been completed (5 months after). It was extreme and very hurtful. I do not understand why she did it but this is it. I find it unprofessional. Anyways, call and call and call again. Good luck
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Use ChatGPT to improve the English style "Improve the grammar ...."
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: In addition to the other advice, it's worth reminding him why it's important to get the paper out the door sooner rather than later. You've mentioned it appearing in other parts of your work, which is a valid reason. Will you be applying for jobs this fall? Are you applying for a grant where this paper is an key part of your narrative? Concrete reasons why faster publication is important can be a good way to encourage (not guilt!) your coauthor to move a little quicker.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/07
| 6,419
| 26,119
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an established researcher in my discipline, which is a sub-field of computer science. In the last years, I have successfully published papers and generally enjoyed doing research, as in *developing methods*, *coding*, *running experiments*, etc.
However, unfortunately, I have come to hate my peers in this discipline because of bad experiences I made on multiple fronts. I am not speaking about my colleagues at work, but rather my fellow researchers around the world. **As author** I have witnessed (primarily at venues with very high reputation)
* Reviews asking you to cite irrelevant papers (presumably published by the reviewer)
* Minimum effort reviews that are useless for improving the manuscript: Some extremely positive (Accept + "*I could find no flaw here*" (the paper definitely had several flaws)), some extremely negative (Reject + "*This is not novel. Let's move on.*" (the other reviewers praised the novelty))
* A desk rejection after waiting 11 months for a peer review, arguing that the paper is out of the journal's scope.
* Reviewers demanding a revision in a conference rebuttal where the rules forbid me from providing one.
* Upfront discrimination based on my nationality.
* General closed-mindedness and unwarranted hostility towards fundamentally novel ideas, paired with a strong preference for minor extensions of existing work while simultaneously complaining about the prevalence of incremental results and salami-slicing publication tactics.
**As reviewer** I have witnessed
* Authors who write elaborate response letters but are unwilling to significantly change a single paragraph of their manuscript, even if all reviewers demand it.
* Not a single response letter / rebuttal comment that is not full of boot-licking. (Many reviewers get emotional when authors are not extremely polite and submissive, so the authors are not really to blame)
* Fake results (I ran their experiments using their own code, and their method was not best like they claimed, but worst).
* Fellow reviewers not responding to a single comment by the authors or chairs, thus completely undermining a conference's rebuttal phase where authors are supposed to get a chance to defend their work.
* Every single paper I review shows clear signs of data-dredging ([see here](https://xkcd.com/1838/)). This is perhaps unsurprising – authors are forced to do data-dredging because the baseline performances they compare their methods against were also achieved using data dredging, and negative results, i.e., bad performances, get immediately rejected, without exception.
The list goes on. I think that it is quite clear that I have a very bad impression of my fellow researchers around the world, and that my experiences have made me a bitter, and perhaps petty person.
Nowadays, a researcher's productivity is mostly assessed by counting the number of publications and citations thereof (*Publish or Perish*), so I am more or less forced to write, submit, revise and review papers. And I enjoy the scientific and technical work. But interacting with my peers in the same discipline, especially via peer review, just fills me with bitterness.
So, my question is:
**How do I continue working on my research when I completely and utterly despise my peers in the discipline?**
Have any of you been in a similar situation, and what did you do to move on?<issue_comment>username_1: I am afraid that what you are describing here is (a probably slightly pessimistic and dramatic view of) the current general state of academia. I have been authoring and reviewing in different fields (space technologies, and then machine learning and computational neuroscience), and many of the flaws you identified (e.g. reviewers asking for self-citations or providing unhelpful comments, long review process, or reproducibility crisis - and yes, even in computer sciences: [What should I do when I can’t replicate results from a conference paper?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/196924/123985)) have been well identified across fields. Even to the point of turning into comedy:
* <https://twitter.com/thirdreviewer>
* <https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=581>
* <https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/science-2>
As the popular saying goes, we, as researchers, need to accept what cannot be changed and have the strength to change what can be.
To accept what cannot be changed: innisfree's comment is spot on. You don't hate your peers, but you rather dislike several aspects of academia. As in any complex system involving a lot of people, there is a "pyramid of irresponsibility" in academia, in which you have nice peers but end up with a system having several flaws. Regarding the hostility towards novel ideas that you mentioned: note that there is often a very thin and blurry line between self-claimed novelty and crackpottery.
To change what can be changed: some obvious steps to be taken involve reporting unethical publishing practices, refusing to submit or to review for discutable journals and venues, and supporting initiatives or travel grants that aim at reducing discrimination in academia. Other interesting initiatives have been taken:
* To protest against publishing fees: <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01391-5>
* To make peer-reviewing more efficient by having all reviewers collaborate, instead of having them submit individual reviews: <https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/741dbe4d/elife-s-new-model-open-for-submissions?gclid=CjwKCAjw1YCkBhAOEiwA5aN4AVPbbGPgyCDO0tLFx3MTQ0pkohifAnxPXxMjPgvVPYttzRkeHs-XchoCh5oQAvD_BwE>
* To change the model of academic publishing: <https://neural-reckoning.org/reviewing.html>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I have experienced the majority of the problems you describe in your post, in some cases even worse (e.g., over a year for a perfunctory referee report, over two years in total for a referee report). I've also experienced a number of other types of unprofessional conduct that you haven't listed. While these things are certainly annoying, and cause one to despair for the state of academia sometimes, it has not led me to despise people in the profession. Instead, let these inconveniences wash over you and accept that sometimes you will need to deal with the foibles and bad conduct of others. Use these negative experiences as signposts for *what not to do* in your own work and let those bad experiences be a driver for you to perform your own work in a professional, ethical and timely manner.
I notice that many of the issues you raise involve unprofessional conduct in review processes in academic journals. I've also experienced this over the years and I'm also familiar with more general critiques of the entire academic publishing industry (see e.g., [Scholar Nexus](https://scholar.nexus/)). As a result, I've developed a stronger preference for publishing work directly to ArXiv in cases where the journal system performs poorly in dealing with my work. In most cases when I publish now, I submit to journals initially to see if I can get something published in an appropriate journal in my field, but if I get mucked around then I'm happy to publish directly to ArXiv, even if this harms the impact of my publications. This can have some negative repercussions in terms of impact and academic performance, but it can be a useful trade-off in some cases. (It is also a good way to encourage a move away from closed-access academic publishing systems.) If you are at breaking-point on these issues, you should consider whether you might regain some enjoyment of your profession by publishing outside of the traditional academic publishing system.
As a more general observation, it might also be worth your while to step back and think more broadly about the relationship you would like to see exist in society between the evaluation of personal value and professional work. I have always felt that society tends to judge people too heavily on the status of their job and their competence in that job. Naturally, some people are not competent in aspects of their work. (Indeed, there is a famous management principle that people [rise to their level of incompetence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle).) Professional shortcomings, in relation to work tasks, should be seen as a professional development areas for people, but it shouldn't generally cause feelings of hatred or bitterness. If you can step back and re-evaluate the distinction between personal value and professional work, you might find that it gives you some peace of mind and allows you to enjoy your colleagues more.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The bulk of science is done by PhD and PostDocs. Afterwards, the researchers become something that can be described as "research managers" and there is all this theater you are describing.
It is an hypocrital system, the ones "leading" it are the ones playing by the rules, so they are researchers accepting (and preserving, with or without the intention) this theather and at the same time providing resources to PhDs and Postdocs.
How to move on? Move on!
Look for a position in the industry or in regulatory bodies/public entities/foundations. Look for application of your research and publish in other venues, if you think it is a people thing limited to your subfield and not a systematic thing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Your complaint is about the behavior of authors and reviewers. Authors and reviewers are supposed to be supervised by an editor or conference chair. If authors and reviewers are persistently doing a bad job, that means the editor is doing a bad job. That fits with my experience that most editors do almost nothing.
If you want to improve the situation, become an editor or conference chair.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Since you did not say that you hate **all** your peers, I assume that you hate **some** of your peers. They may be many and even the majority, but I still suggest:
#### Find peers that you like, meet them more often, avoid the ones that you actively hate.
As for me, I do not really hate any peers, but I can definitely relate to some of your words. My tactic was and is: find a nice group of peers with which you interact. This group makes me feel welcome enough and also helps me to shrug off experiences like underwhelming effort of reviewers.
Re-reading the body of the question, it now appears that you may have more problems with peers during peer-review only, and not in general. For this, I do not have good advice other than "continue to be professional, act in the positions where you can act, keep speaking up if something is not right".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: You have to distinguish:
* the game you play that is called "career in academia"
* actual sensible, correct (and maybe even useful) research
You haven't invented the game, you cannot really change the rules, and -- unless you are tenured and do not care about getting grants -- you need to follow the rules of the game.
Thinking of it as a game actually makes it a lot easier. You just follow arbitrary rules and then you can "win" a tenured position somewhere, or a grant. This is not a about truth, it is just playing by the rules.
Depending on your position and your time and your research interests you may spare some time for the real research, even maybe finding some overlap between the real research and the game. This then rewards your inner truth seeking self. And is of course a lot more fun than the other part.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: With having a by far less experience, I will just express my point of view which is: simply we enjoy what we do. All aspects have something negative and here is well described situation(s) that are negative within academia in general. Thus the question is how we can act differently and how we can inspire others to act differently
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: In the interests of being constructive :
Find the peers you do like and consider starting a purely online peer-review journal of your own. You can set the rules and standards you and your like-minded peers want.
This might be one way to address (in a small way) your issues with the current state of peer-review publication. Create an outlet for like-minded academics and see if it gains traction, either as a publication in it's own right or as a concept that others try.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: >
> How do I continue work if I love my research but hate my peers?
>
>
>
I suggest that you consider your options. You may find that, compared to peers in other areas, such as business, public sector, and so on, your current peers that you hate so deeply are quite decent people:-) Or maybe this is not so, then you may have some real options:-)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I had thought this is about colleagues at work. Alas, it's about *colleagues* I can relate to. On many fronts, I relate with your description. There're certain journals and conferences I don't bother about anymore: I just skip 'em.
PS: I have a computing background (at masters level). I've moved on more towards social sciences and IS
>
> However, unfortunately, I have come to hate my peers in this discipline because of bad experiences I made on multiple fronts. I am not speaking about my colleagues at work, but rather my fellow researchers around the world
>
>
>
All I can say, which is what I do, keep putting in your utmost best in research work, research writing and especially in reviewing.
Though I might not change the world, I positively consciously influence the dots/bubbles within my sphere.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: I'm a postdoc so perhaps not senior or wise enough yet to post, but I didn't see answers I liked so much so I'm posting anyway.
**Step 0: You pack up your troubles with you.** @username_9 makes an important point, but perhaps too subtly for my taste. The OP has identified that there are certain unattractive aspects of the peer-review process, and these seem to be more "cultural" (I would say) than "structural" in the sense that if only we had a better batch of people --- I would prefer to say a better culture of research, better norms particularly --- then the peer review process would be more pleasant and less petty. A significant minority of posters have suggested that, well, sounds like OP should go into industry -- I say, not so fast! Industry could be just as bad if not worse. There is a saying: "You pack up your troubles with you." I don't take this to be a question about staying in academia or not.
And then OP actually doesn't mention quitting academia and suggests in the post that they are relatively well-established (i.e., not at a fork in the road where staying in academia is concerned). I do have a friend who quit academia for reasons along these lines (he and I had a cathartic conversation about how the problem was **ego**, which is very relevant to this question in my estimation, but that's somewhat beside the point).
**Key issue: people are only human.** It's interesting the OP says "I hate my peers," not "I really dislike/resent the way peer review is conducted" or something along those lines. I am not trained in psychology, but my understanding is the statement "I hate group X" functions to dehumanize -- or, more relevantly, distance oneself --- from that group. Here's my point: **nowhere in the post does the OP acknowledge that they, too, engage in some similar behaviors.**
Are the OP's hands really completely clean here? Or, better question: does the OP not realize that they probably also do some similar things, if not in research, then in other aspects of their life? Or perhaps it is a matter of degree and not kind...? So I could say "I hate robbers, they're so low," but then I have been known to download pirated media online... which might not be robbery per se, but it is a kind of stealing.
So I would try to reframe this less about "I hate these people" and more about "Sometimes we are responding to incentives or our egos in ugly ways" (keyword: we) or, at a higher level, "I wish we had a culture that was more idealistic/highminded/principled/generous/understanding/fill-in-the-blank..."
**Step 1: They are just as human as the OP.** We all have egos. I see what the OP is describing and a lot of it is about ego. For instance, the part mentioning "incremental results": only the reviewer's work is interesting, the author's work is merely incremental. That's ego --- it's also an example of cognitive bias: seeing what you want to see.
Everyone suffers from cognitive bias. That's not a problem that's going away. People are doing their best, but they have blind spots. Some may be worse than others. So, yes, they really may be convinced in their own heads that the work they want you to cite is relevant and needs to be cited --- or they justify it because everyone else does it, or they just need to get this promotion to save their marriage and that justifies it --- in my experience of academia, it seems more like (extreme) cognitive bias due to pressure and competitiveness rather than outright corruption. (Though I have to say, I do think corruption is a good one to keep in mind.) For instance, I have seen what I feel is a very weak paper get published in a quite reasonable journal, but I believe it is because the authors were under so much pressure to get something done that they honestly convinced themselves the paper was worth publishing, not because they cynically accepted pulling a fast one. My point: unless given clear counter-evidence, can we accept that these petty issues are matters of legitimate professional disagreement mixed in with personal error? Perhaps someone had a bad day? Can the OP accept that he might be wrong? Maybe the work really is incremental. Unlike CS research problems, these are subjective questions.
Now, it may be that the OP is a particularly less cognitively biased person than others --- or they believe themselves to be --- but what of sympathy? Also, can we really be sure we're less cognitively biased than others? Or, in general, more moral than them? More principled? I certainly do believe myself to be more principled and more self-circumspect than most of my colleagues --- I go to great lengths to try to give the author the benefit of the doubt and explain literally what I am trying to say ---, but I can also admit that I am just as human as everyone else. I have my own blindspots and lapses.
***Step 2: The OP is as human as they are*** So, again, to me "I hate these people" has a bit of a suggestion of "I am better than these people." I mean, why hate otherwise? I don't want to push this too far --- I didn't actually detect that much condescension or superiority in the OP's writing --- but I think there is a point to be made.
**Is the OP too good to just hold his nose and go through the peer review process like everyone else? (What would be the downsides?)**
Case in point: I recently had a review that really upset me. I could go into the details --- they're potentially scandalous --- but does the OP really care? What's really important here? I want my research to be published, so does OP, and I also want it to be peer reviewed. Unfortunately, there is a level of politics and pettiness that shows its face. Has it prevented OP from having a research career? Is OP putting food on the table? On track to get a permanent position? In my case, my work is still being published so the upsetting review is a matter of cosmetics. "Sticks and stones." (Actually, the lukewarm response to some of my recent work does mean I have still more reason to migrate to a slightly different subfield, but it's not just one review I'm afraid and the writing has been on the wall.)
When I started teaching, I very quickly realized my teaching evaluations had been much too harsh. When I started trying to work with PhD students on research, I realized how hard that was, and how harsh a critic of my own PhD adviser I had been. That's what I mean when I say: we're all human. It's easy to criticize others, just be careful not to go too far. You're about as good as them.
Can the OP really say that he hasn't been petty, egotistical, or unfair in any of his reviews? Perhaps he *can*. But **should** he say it? Are you in a better position to deal with this problem believing it is about other people (hence "I hate them") or understanding it is about the community (hence, e.g., "Our community needs stronger norms") and acknowledging you yourself suffer from related pitfalls?
***A solution?*** I think once you reframe the question, it becomes easier to see possible solutions. For me (I am in the same boat as OP, except I'm a postdoc, perhaps not an "established researched"), it comes down to this.
It's not (all) about me. There's room for debate about which work is better than which other work, and, as I learned in the process of getting a PhD, very smart people (with PhDs) can surprise you in terms of things they may simply misunderstand on any given day. So maybe they're just wrong! Or maybe I am! I can still go home and love my wife, enjoy my hobbies, ... and enjoy research?
So there's a question: can you enjoy research even when it's not appreciated as you feel it should be? Can you enjoy it if you're not at the top? Or not a professor "at Harvard"? (Are there other careers --- less competitive perhaps --- you might enjoy just as much?)
Or, more relevant to the OP's specific question, can you hold your nose and deal with reviews (or author's response to reviews you wrote), **even when you have your questions about them**? Notice I said "have your questions" --- not "the reviewer was way out of bounds," "he said my work was incremental," etc., just "OK, you don't agree with the reviewer, such is life." Can the OP live with that?
Don't ask me for (more) specific strategies, I'm working on those as well. But I do think humility helps, and not looking to point a finger, building a case against the reviewer, etc. helps. If you're at a point where you notice the reviewer used the adjective "incremental" and you're stewing over that, looking for support from people online about how you're in the right, etc., that behavior right there --- that is what I'm actively working on **not** doing. You have no control over other people, but you do have some over yourself.
**Is this stuff really what you want to spend your time thinking about?** (If so, how can you transition your career or your free time so you're changing "the system" then? Or maybe, instead of a question-and-answer site discussion, which might not be optimized for this, you want to organize a discussion forum at a conference where academics get together expressly to talk about these kind of "cultural" issues? I don't want to be patronizing, but I don't think Q&A is the best way to go about this.)
You know the worst part of the review I mentioned above? The worst part is knowing the reviewer has a point, even though I mostly feel it was an unfair review! So how much nuance or subtlety is really worthwhile here? (I.e., is the reviewer really completely wrong, or are they just unfair, and does it really matter?) Let's go find other problems to work on and keep improving. So far I said a lot about the review and nothing about the *actual research involved*. Part of me is determined to prove the reviewer wrong by publishing follow-up papers improving on the first one --- because I do think our work is interesting and I have a hunch there's a lot more to do. The other part? The other part of me thinks it's not worth it and I should just transition to a different set of research problems entirely! Either way, sounds like I have better things to do than stew over the review, no?
***Addendum: Case study.*** OK, so here's an example that I think illustrates what I'm on about. I guess what I'm trying to say after all is: don't take things (so) personally.
I know a bunch of researchers, all in the same field, who will not talk to each other. Mary won't talk anymore to her PhD adviser Frank. Kyle won't talk to me because of a heated argument once between us. Did I mention Frank and his former postdoc Skip don't talk to each other either? And Bob and his former PhD student Claude don't speak anymore either.
Kyle won't talk to me, but, you know what, I'm determined to show no such antipathy towards them. I'm ready to resume communication at any time, and I look forward to the day we're talking again. It's nothing personal to me. I get it, it's not unique to Kyle! Just look at Frank and Bob! Kyle is probably a great person (who, by the way, I don't know well at all), it's just our job is competitive, there's a lot of pressure, people get into arguments.
If I descend into the "I really dislike my colleague Kyle. Help me, Academia Stackexchange," the problem is I indulge my ego (or something like that --- again, not a psychologist here). I indulge the belief that I'm better than Kyle. Anyway, what is there to do? Maybe Kyle just has nothing to say to me. We'll probably meet at a conference and I'll realize it was all in my head. So what is it? I believe he's got lots of potential as a researcher and I want our field to benefit as much as possible from that --- his success is mine as well, I really believe that. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm here to do research, I hope to work with Kyle again some day, but I have other collaborators and so does he so I'm not worried.
And, more generally, I'm determined *not* to fall into the same trap as the others. I want to do the best work possible. I want to work with other researchers. I'm here, I'm talking. If we have personal disputes, we'll deal with them, try to put them to the side, have heated arguments. But I'm not "ghosting" or going into "not talking to so-and-so" mode. As far as "What can I do about Kyle?," or "What can I do about the reviewers?", not taking things personally is my best answer.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/07
| 2,017
| 8,328
|
<issue_start>username_0: The title includes my main problem. I am a clinician-scientist in the field of clinical nutrition. I love my job and I have a good relationship with my supervisor who supports me a lot. I have my own research projects running and access to his databases - so I publish on a regular basis. My boss grants me freedom regarding the topics I focus on. Everything is great - except that my boss *insists* on publishing with MDPI. More specifically, he almost all the time asks me to submit to "Nutrients", a Q1 MDPI Journal with one of the highest IF in the field of nutrition. However, MDPI and Nutrients attracted a lot of criticism (e.g. an article called "[Persistent Issues With the Journal Nutrients and Its Publisher MDPI](https://www.pcrm.org/news/good-science-digest/persistent-issues-journal-nutrients-and-its-publisher-mdpi)" ) in the past.
Almost 70% of our work goes there, which means that only 30% of my work has been published in other journals. I am well aware of the potential implications and want to convince him that we should try other venues. He loves open access though, and we cannot afford OA in the higher ranking options in the field of Nutrition (our library subsidizes publications with MDPI).
What can I do ? I feel this negatively affects grant applications and my reputation in the field.<issue_comment>username_1: I had a similar experience in the past. My former boss was insisting to publish all my PhD papers on an MDPI journal [Entropy], even though in our field the journal is not even Q1 but rather Q2.
I would propose to stand your ground, but be prepared to face any consequences.
* Send him this recent post [List of all MDPI predatory journals](https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/list-of-all-mdpi-predatory-publications) that includes additional links describing the questionable practices of this editor.
* Emphasize that this journal choice will harm your CV, since a lot of grant agencies and universities do not recognize MDPI journals as valid publications, and may even consider this detrimental for your application, since they view it as trying to publish inaccurate results/science.
* If he still remains unconvinced with these discussions you have to go to a responsible person at your university/institution (probably ombudsman) explaining them the situation and asking for advice and help with this situation.
The publication venue has to be jointly decided by all authors, and if one author has valid points for not wanting to publish to a journal (i.e., due to predatory practices) this should stay out of the question.
**My personal story is the following:**
After we published a paper at an MDPI journal and my advisor noticed that it was rather easy to get a fast acceptance, he started publishing all his students' papers at this journal. He was at the verge of retirement so didn't really care about any career consequences.
In the past we had big fights over this issue, where I sent him several blog entries describing the questionable reviewing practices of MDPI journals (even a wikipedia link). He was insisting to the point of threatening me to remove his name from the paper if I was insisting to send it to a non-MDPI journal. I started suspecting that MDPI was giving him bonuses/bribing him for publishing with them. I don't make this thoughts very easily, but we literally had weekly fights for 6 months straight over this exact topic, without him being able to give me a proper justification on to why not to send the paper to another publisher.
Fortunately I didn't publish the paper there, but that came with a big health cost and complete breakdown of my relationship to the advisor.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Where are you planning to submit your results then?
Scientific publication is bad from its roots, see [its history](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science). And now we are splitting the hair, considering MDPI "bad", but Elsevier or others ["good"](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/may/07/too-greedy-mass-walkout-at-global-science-journal-over-unethical-fees).
The real question is: what better venue can we offer/build? in the meanwhile, it is either accepting that your professor and the people at MDPI get credibility and profit, or that the big western publishers get credibility and profit.
Given that MDPI is transparent in their effort of being a leading publisher, but they are not doing for profit, the choice is up to you:
* money to western publishers (money is power)
* credibility to the child of the single party chinese capitalism (in the capital world, credibility brings money and money brings power)
Good luck!
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the answer depends a lot on what you mean by boss.
If it is just your supervisor, you can just say "no, this is my work and we are submitting elsewhere", and that is it.
If it is your phd supervisor, the history is a bit different.
In my view, a supervisor is just a senior colleague, but a colleague nonetheless. Unless you are doing his work under his direct direction (seldomly the case), there is no reason why he should dictate where you submit your work.
Of course, mostly people somehow view this as a power dynamics, where the supervisor has more power.
However, in the end of the day, he will have very little impact in the future of your career (again, if we are talking about academia, not a company), and your publishing history will be more important.
Also, be aware that permanent staff in ula lot of universities receive bonus based on publication. The size of bonus is proportional to some index, which often is associated with bibliometrics like IF.
Most selection committees for academics only look at IF as well. So, as long as you do not have 100% of your best papers in a single journal, no one cares really.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Please consider the position of your "boss" more closely. Nutrients has a reasonably high ranking, impact factor, citations, etc, meaning that your articles are in good company. I claim that the position of your boss is reasonably rational and that your boss could very well not see the harm to your career that you see.
Instead of trying to convince your "boss" that (s)he is wrong, try to convince her/him that your concerns are genuine and that you two should publish elsewhere on occasion. Otherwise, I see very little chance for things to change.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Perhaps it is too late to take this approach, but I would try to drop the MDPI angle (it doesn't sound like you are going to change your boss's opinion of them), and make the point that it is not a good idea to publish too much in any single journal.
The reasons for this are:
1. You are putting all your eggs in one basket. I consider that there are four top journals in my field (which differ in focus, rather than quality). However, if I only submitted to one of the four, someone with a slightly different view of which the top journals are might rate my CV much lower as a result. I'd expect almost everyone's list to mostly agree with mine, though, so by spreading papers out between them I don't need to worry.
2. Simply the fact that someone publishes most of their papers in a single journal would make me suspect that the journal is not very selective. This is a bigger problem if your CV is being evaluated by someone outside your field (which eventually it will be), who may not be familiar with the journal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: One way people have shown badness of journals was writing a bad paper and getting it accepted.
You could try to do that, maybe under a pseudonym, and show your acceptance notification to your boss (without actually publishing it).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: Hiring committees in many countries are beginning to view publication in MDPI and similar venues as a *negative* on a curriculum. Even without looking at the quality of the article (which hiring committees often do not do in any meaningful sense), the mere fact of repeatedly publishing in such a venue can be seen as indicative of certain behaviors which many regard as problematic or undesirable particularly in a coworker.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/08
| 3,075
| 13,170
|
<issue_start>username_0: A journal I handle recently received a paper that looks like a student's project. Reasons to think this include the research conducted, the writing style (e.g. the paper describes things which research-level readers are virtually certain to know well), and the fact that of the paper's two authors, one of them is a professor while the other's LinkedIn profile says they're an undergraduate.
If it is a student's project, then one would expect the student to be listed as the first author, but the professor is listed first. This feels a little concerning on an intuitive level (maybe bullying is involved?). All our communications address both authors, but the professor is the submitting author who also answers our questions, and the student has not told us anything directly.
I'm one of the journal's staff. Should I do anything? If yes, what?
Some of the obvious things I can do are:
* Nothing. The "evidence" is at best suggestive and very far from conclusive. There could be nothing inappropriate going on at all. Besides, journals usually don't get involved in authorship disputes.
* Directly bring it up with the authors. (The professor is likely to say the ordering is correct, but they were always going to say that, so this doesn't seem like it achieves anything.)
* Email the student, and only the student, to ask them about this. (Could be scary for the student, might also offend the professor if they learn about it, which they easily could if the student tells them.)
**Edit**: to clarify, 1) there is no policy to email every author to get their consent to publish, but there is a policy to include every author in all our communications. I have no reason to think that the email address of the student is wrong. 2) The standard in the field is to list authors by contribution. For this particular manuscript as well, if the author order were alphabetical, the student would come first.<issue_comment>username_1: I would strongly encourage you to go for Option (1) - do nothing.
You are reading **a lot** into a very noisy signal. It's possible that something shady is going on, but it is also very possible that the professor did in fact do most of the intellectual work and just got some help from their students (e.g., as part of a research internship). Contrary to popular belief, some professors do in fact still do research on their own. Do not apply your own experience from how things work around you to everybody in the world (remember that [academia varies more than you think](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie)).
I would argue that with Option (3) you are severely overstepping your boundaries. Nothing good will come out of that. Even *if* there is something shady going on, what will your email accomplish? The students are already aware of the author order (they receive an email after all, and likely need to confirm their co-authorship). And if there is a brewing conflict because the students are unhappy with the order (which, again, is a pretty substantial if), there is nothing you can do to help them. You cannot force them to change the order of authors based on a hunch. The most severe thing you can do on the journal side is desk-reject the paper, but then the authors can just re-submit elsewhere.
I have multiple papers where I, as the most senior person on the team, did most of the work and was listed first. I would have been extremely miffed if somebody from the journal staff would have asked me to explain myself (or worse, show proof that I did indeed do sufficient work to be first author).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am a recent graduate of a Japanese university, and while I may not be expected to respond to such a question, I feel compelled to express my thoughts because I myself was taken advantage of as an undegraduate student.
If it's evident that the student did most of the writing, it is very probable that they did most of the intellectual work and deserve to be in the first position. It's not very common for a professor to do most of the intellectual work and let their students write the text about the work done by the professor. Although one of the answers lists possible scenarios in which this could happen, I have never heard about this actually happening.
And I have heard about numerous instances of students being taken advantage of. I know one professor, albeit not in my country, who used to tell his students that a good traditional way to arrange authors is alphabetical. So, all or almost all papers written by his students had the alphabetical order - and the professor's surname starts with B. And I know a professor who used to tell his students and staff that in order to secure good funding for his group, he must have a lot of first-authored papers. He is the first author of a majority of papers published by his research group.
In your question, you make it clear that the writing style and the research conducted say it all. So, if the research looks like a student project, AND the manuscript looks like written by a student, this is a huge red flag. And you know this, because otherwise you would not have asked this question, in the first place.
It's very easy to play the Devil's advocate and say that nothing wrong might be taking place, but you know what the odds are.
So, please, don't be a silent accomplice to potential wrongdoing. You cannot imagine how grateful the student could be if you stand up for what's right.
I suggest writing to the authors with a message of the following kind and CCing the student:
>
> Dear Prof. XXX and Mr. XXX,
>
>
> Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Journal of XXX.
>
>
> Unfortunately, there's an issue that presents a challenge in accepting
> your manuscript for publication in our journal. The concern pertains
> to the author order on the author list. While I understand that you
> may have valid reasons for the chosen arrangement, it is potentially
> harmful to the reputation of the journal to accept papers that don't look like conforming to common conventions. This includes papers that are
> first-authored by an experienced researcher, but look like
> mostly written and contributed to by a student guided by that
> researcher.
>
>
> Therefore, if you have strong reasons for the chosen arrangement, I suggest adding a statement of the authors' individual contributions in order to dispel any concerns our readers may have. Alternatively, you could discuss the possibility of swapping your positions in the author list.
>
>
> I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused and appreciate your
> understanding in this matter.
>
>
> Yours sincerely, XXX
>
>
>
I think that sending such a message is pretty safe because it doesn't say the student is being bullied or wronged. In fact, the message says that you understand the authors may have valid reasons for the chosen arrangement, and you offer them the option of explaining their individual contributions.
I hope that my answer will be at least helpful in understanding what the student might want you to do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I find it very easy to imagine a scenario where the student did most of the writing even if the professor contributed most of the ideas.
Reasons for this include:
1. the professor is likely to be busy with other things;
2. the paper may well be low priority for the professor but high priority for the student;
3. there may be a university requirement that the student does almost all the writing in order to get (internal) credit.
These reasons are essentially independent of scientific contribution.
If you had any evidence that the contributions were being misrepresented, perhaps you should act on it. But you don't.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree fully with [username_1’s answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/197009/1277), that your description of the situation doesn’t sound like such serious cause for concern, and certainly doesn’t justify taking unilateral action.
Here I’ll add one more point: at least in the systems I’m familiar with, **any action should initially go through the submission’s handling editor.** They are the person who’s in contact with the authors on non-administrative questions, and who is primarily responsible for making sure the paper meets the journal’s policies and standards (including for authorship ordering) — and they should know the conventions of the field well enough to know those standards well. So if *they* are concerned about this point (either on their own behalf, or because a referee has raised the issue), then it’s completely appropriate for them to raise it with the authors to figure out whether there’s any problem, or (if they’re convinced there is a problem) to take some action in response.
However, from what you write, it sounds like you’re *not* the handling editor. If that’s the case, you have a clear path of action: **mention your concerns to that editor, and leave any further action to them**. They, not you, have the responsibility and authority to handle it — and hopefully the experience, integrity, and good sense to handle it well. And hopefully they’ll be able to either reassure you that the current ordering is appropriate, or else keep you updated on whatever further inquiry or actions they take.
(On the other hand, if you are the handling editor, then that’s important information you should add to the question!)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't think that you or the Journal should contact the corresponding author (who, I presume, is the first author listed) and bring this up directly.
I ***do*** think you might discuss this with the Editor or the managing editor involved with sending this out to reviewers and determining the publication status.
It might be that the student (who ostensibly wrote the paper) wanted his professor to be the principal author to give the paper more gravitas than it might be worth.
The paper should be reviewed and judged purely on its merits, including writing style and other pedantic issues. An honest and critical review might embarrass the professor enough that he/she gets more deeply involved in the revision of the paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I want to suggest two things:
(1) - Do nothing. You have far too little evidence. I work on the boundary between maths and computing, and there we often put papers in alphabetical order of author. Also, maybe the professor just isn't an expert in this area, worked on something with a student, then wrote it up badly. Unless you have significantly more evidence, I really don't think any response here is approriate.
Extra: If you want information like this, ask for it! Your journal can ask for a written statement on what each author contributed to the paper, which can either be kept private, or included as part of the paper. Many journals require such things. It might be hard to retroactively apply that to this paper, but it would help with similar future issues -- while it doesn't fix outright lying, in my experience if greatly helps with such problems.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: One more vote for Option 1 - "do nothing".
Besides all the other things mentioned in the other answers, there might have been some kind of agreement between the authors. During my time as a PhD student, I once worked on a paper with a maths professor, and (to me) it felt like our contributions were roughly the same.
When it came to actually submitting, the professor asked me, if I needed a "first author paper" in order to graduate (this was the case in the maths department). Since I didn't (there was no such requirement in the engineering department) and at the time was already planning to leave the university after my PhD, I happily gave up the spot as first author. To me, being first or second author made no difference, but for her, it meant having to write another paper or not that year, in order to fulfill her agreement with the university.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: Please do the last option you have suggested. That is, to write to the student co-author directly and exclusively and find out the co-authors' respective contributions.
In Sri Lanka, I know there is a monetary reward scheme for academic staff called "Research Allowance" (since 2011), which is an additional monthly payment of 33% of the basic salary for one year for research undertaken during the course of a year (it need not be necessarily published). Many academics steal students' undergraduate dissertations (without their knowledge) to claim this Research Allowance. Thus, there is widespread abuse of this incentive scheme. In Sri Lanka, the bulk of the universities are state-owned/funded,
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Given the current state of deception and fraud in scientific research, I would have a hard time ignoring it and choosing option 1. Doing nothing really just contributes to breaking the system further.
The letter outline by username_2 seems like a good option.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/08
| 1,797
| 7,647
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently in the process of preparing my PhD applications in mathematics, with a particular interest in Additive Combinatorics or Elliptic Curves. As I embark on this journey, I have encountered a predicament regarding the selection of recommenders, and I would greatly appreciate your insights and guidance.
During my 12th grade, I had the privilege of being tutored by a school teacher who possessed exceptional skills in various areas of elementary mathematics, extending well beyond the standard school curriculum. His passion for teaching and his dedication to imparting knowledge to enthusiastic students have had a profound impact on my academic growth. Even after successfully securing admission to a reputable institution for my BS-MS program, I continued to maintain contact with him, as his teaching prowess remained invaluable to me.
Under his guidance, I delved into a multitude of topics that were not covered in my BS-MS curriculum. Specifically, I studied, among other things, everything in books such as Burton's "Elementary Number Theory," <NAME>'s "Elementary Number Theory," covering topics like Residues, Quadratic Reciprocity Law (with some proofs relying on elementary facts from Group Theory), and even an introduction to Cryptography and the RSA scheme. Additionally, I also studied almost everything from "A Walk Through Combinatorics" by <NAME>, which comprehensively covers Generating Functions, Partitions and Stirling's Numbers, as well as Graph Theory, Ramsey Theory, and certain probabilistic methods. Furthermore, he assisted me in understanding renowned proofs from "Proofs from the Book" that do not require very advanced mathematical knowledge.
Moreover, I am fortunate that my teacher holds me in high regard and truly believes in my abilities. I know that he will provide an exceptional recommendation letter if I approach him. However, I am confronted with a challenge: he is officially a school teacher without a PhD or research experience. While he possesses a wealth of knowledge, his lack of academic credentials in the field of mathematics raises questions about the impact such a recommendation letter would have on my PhD application.
Therefore, I kindly seek your advice on the following queries:
1. What effect would a recommendation letter from my school teacher have on my PhD application, considering his expertise in elementary mathematics but without a PhD or research experience?
2. In light of my circumstances, would it be advisable to include a recommendation letter from him in my application?
Thank you for your time.
**Edit:** A comment by <NAME> in [the Mathematics SE post of the same](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4715036/1096489) introduced me to [this link](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4471/172089) and pointed out that I haven't mentioned which country I will be applying for. Although I haven't decided upon any specific choices yet, I will mainly be applying to **US**, **Europe** and a few places in **Canada**.
**Edit 2:** After some discussion in the comments of the [Math SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4715036/1096489) and [Math Overflow](https://mathoverflow.net/q/448459/506548) posts, I decided to add some clarifications in addition to my original post. I understand that if it was indeed true that my main contact with this person was before my Undergrad degree, then there was no question about it since he has no idea what kind of a student I now am. But, as I have mentioned, he has really taught me a lot of stuff (that weren't in my BS-MS course otherwise) that may even be useful in the areas I will be applying for. Now, I understand that people reading his letter will have no way to evaluate this person's credentials, so they won't know how informed their opinions are. Also, if the teacher has no PhD himself, he almost certainly has not been on the other side of the table evaluating PhD applicants, so it is not so clear that a strong letter by him will necessarily tick all the boxes that advisors (Europe) or PhD programmes (North America) are looking for. Hence, my question (reframed) should probably be whether the negative points outweigh the factors that are in my favour, the main one being that I am guaranteed to receive an outstanding letter from him (to the best of his abilities).<issue_comment>username_1: A strong letter from your secondary school mentor can't hurt, since you did relatively advanced work with him. That he does not have an advanced degree will not matter. But that letter can't be decisive. The PhD admissions committee will want to see recommendations from faculty who know your undergraduate work and can speak to your potential for research.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: First, since it's not explicitly mentioned in the question, let me quote (most of) the (relatively highly upvoted) comment of <NAME> from the Mathoverflow post:
>
> ...my personal advice as someone who has read a lot of PhD applications is that it is unwise to get letters from anyone other than university faculty who have taught you in some form. There are 3 issues: 1. it makes it look like you don't really understand the grad school application process, 2. people reading the letter will have no way to evaluate this person's credentials, so they won't know how informed their opinions are, 3. this person's main contact with you was before your undergrad degree, so their knowledge is out of date.
>
>
>
As you say in an edit, this person mentored you throughout undergrad so the 3rd issues is not at play. Still, as the person does not know how to write recommendation letters for a PhD program, and what they've mentored you is not particularly advanced mathematics (though good things to know), I think Andy's advice holds for top-tier, competitive graduate programs.
For mid/low-tier programs that have trouble attracting strong applicants, if this person is able to write a good letter showing you're motivated to learn mathematics outside of your classes, you work hard, and you're bright, then I'd say this letter could be helpful. (Though it could also be detrimental if the person writes some things which are strange from our perspective.)
One thing you don't say is what country/type of university you're coming from. If the faculty at your university have PhDs from North America and/or Europe, they should have at least some idea of how to write appropriate letters, and their letters will be most important. But if not, then letters from your regular faculty might not be any better than one from your high school teacher, and so the latter might make more of a difference.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would recommend, fairly strongly, that you only use a letter from this person if you can't get strong letters from university faculty that you have worked closely with.
That isn't to denigrate this person or your experience, but the fact is that a doctoral program isn't really about "learning math" but about research, and this person says they have no real experience with that. You want letters from people who can honestly and enthusiastically predict your success at math research.
The problem is that most places the number of recommenders is limited (usually about three) and you can probably find people enough who are better qualified for such a prediction.
The other issue is that the competition is fierce and the people who decide are used to more traditional -research focused- sorts of letters.
---
Make sure you find a way to thank this person for contributing to your development.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/08
| 1,241
| 5,139
|
<issue_start>username_0: Should I be worried about getting a professor potentially fired? I reported someone for disability harassment (name-calling and very specific hate speech towards me a student with disabilities. (I'm in upper years of physics and economics).
I reported the complaints to the department head who, in turn, reported to two associate deans. I'm just a little bit scared about how all of this will go down. I don't want this professor fired or anything, which has kept me up at night. I also don't want him walking away scot-free, however. I reported the professor to a lawyer but have not sued my school, nor do I intend to. Instead, I had wanted to cover my butt. Sigh, I am horrified by the situation that caused me profound mental distress, yet I am also empathetic towards not wanting this professor to be penalized too harshly. I'm a human with a conscience. Tenured professors are never fireable, right? And disability harassment is not as bad as sexual harassment, right? (I got called a "useless broken kitten that no one would ever pick up from the animal shelter," amongst other things, so I suppose there is always sadly the possibility that that could be considered minor sexual harassment too.
It's too late to go back from my claims, as I have already reported them and I don't wish to harm my reputation by changing my mind or by saying that I invented things when I did not. However, I find myself empathizing with my former prof, and just wanted to ensure that consequences will most likely be minimal on his end. On mine, I've already been hurt.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Should I be worried about getting a professor potentially fired?
>
>
>
You should not be worried about this, because what happens to the professor is not your decision to make, and not really any of your business, despite the fact that you are the victim of a (quite egregious by the sound of it) episode of harassment.
You did absolutely the right thing to report the incident. It’s useful to keep in mind that the people who will be weighing what to do have a much broader perspective on the situation than you do. They will be considering the implications not just for you as the victim but for other students and coworkers of this professor, for the university’s reputation, for the university community at large, and even potentially for the rest of society. And, I hope and believe, they will also have a measure of empathy for the professor and the circumstances that led him to behave in such a way, and will be considering the implications for him personally.
I don’t know if the professor will be fired or not, that could depend on lots of specific details of the incident and on the culture at your institution and country. But if he is fired, then I would think it much more likely that that decision, reached after a thoughtful deliberative process by experienced professionals, is the correct decision, than for your opposing view driven by a personal sense of guilt and focused on your own involvement in the incident, to represent the correct way of looking at things.
Of course, mistakes do sometimes happen and there are occasions when people are punished too harshly for something they did. If the university makes a mistake by firing the professor when they shouldn’t have, the responsibility for making that mistake will be on them, not on you. As I said, you did the right thing to truthfully report what happened.
I’m sorry this happened to you. I can’t imagine what the guy could have been thinking to say such a horrible thing.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Having made the complaint, the outcome of the matter is now largely out of your hands. The institution will have its own position on what conduct it expects from its professors, how badly it regards departure from expected conduct, and the punishment it considers appropriate for breach of its rules (if this is found to have occurred). Ideally, if the complaints system at the university is working properly, this professor will be provided with due process in the complaint, and if he is found to have breached the university rules then there will be some objective determination of an appropriate outcome, based on all relevant factors.
In any case, as the initial complainant, it is open to you to tell the university *what you would like to see happen* in the matter. It sounds like your desired outcome is for there to be some punishment that is not as severe as termination. If you want to, you could write a submission to the assessors who are reviewing your complaint and let them know the desired outcome you have in mind. This will not be binding on the university (they might impose a more or less severe punishment), but they might consider it to be a relevant factor in making their own determination of a punishment (in the event that the professor is found to have breached the university rules).
>
> Tenured professors are never fireable, right?
>
>
>
Wrong.
>
> And disability harassment is not as bad as sexual harassment, right?
>
>
>
Generally right, but depends on specifics.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/09
| 1,190
| 5,049
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a math doctoral student. Recently, I received a revision of one of my articles.
It is a positive report. In the report letter, the referee advised looking into a particular project (a significant project, not an indivisual project) and connecting it to my paper to give the impression that my work has a wider readership. The report might advise citing some of the project's work. Though there were a few links, they weren't really strong, so I found less of a connection between the project (referee mentioned) and my paper. I've talked about this with a few people working on that project (referee mentioned), and they've said they'll try to expand their project later, which might strongly tie their project to my outcome. However, it is uncertain, and I cannot hold out for them for so long. In the interim, I discovered similar projects where my work is directly applicable. To put it another way, my results are more relevant to a different project.
Now that I have revised the paper, I would like to send it back to the editor.
How do I inform the editor that we have discovered a slight connection with the project the referee mentioned, but have instead found a similar project in which my results are more significant than the project (referee mentioned) and have revised the paper accordingly?
Should I write a distinct cover letter to the referee via the editor? Or should I simply disclose every detail to the editor and send only the revised paper?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Should I be worried about getting a professor potentially fired?
>
>
>
You should not be worried about this, because what happens to the professor is not your decision to make, and not really any of your business, despite the fact that you are the victim of a (quite egregious by the sound of it) episode of harassment.
You did absolutely the right thing to report the incident. It’s useful to keep in mind that the people who will be weighing what to do have a much broader perspective on the situation than you do. They will be considering the implications not just for you as the victim but for other students and coworkers of this professor, for the university’s reputation, for the university community at large, and even potentially for the rest of society. And, I hope and believe, they will also have a measure of empathy for the professor and the circumstances that led him to behave in such a way, and will be considering the implications for him personally.
I don’t know if the professor will be fired or not, that could depend on lots of specific details of the incident and on the culture at your institution and country. But if he is fired, then I would think it much more likely that that decision, reached after a thoughtful deliberative process by experienced professionals, is the correct decision, than for your opposing view driven by a personal sense of guilt and focused on your own involvement in the incident, to represent the correct way of looking at things.
Of course, mistakes do sometimes happen and there are occasions when people are punished too harshly for something they did. If the university makes a mistake by firing the professor when they shouldn’t have, the responsibility for making that mistake will be on them, not on you. As I said, you did the right thing to truthfully report what happened.
I’m sorry this happened to you. I can’t imagine what the guy could have been thinking to say such a horrible thing.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Having made the complaint, the outcome of the matter is now largely out of your hands. The institution will have its own position on what conduct it expects from its professors, how badly it regards departure from expected conduct, and the punishment it considers appropriate for breach of its rules (if this is found to have occurred). Ideally, if the complaints system at the university is working properly, this professor will be provided with due process in the complaint, and if he is found to have breached the university rules then there will be some objective determination of an appropriate outcome, based on all relevant factors.
In any case, as the initial complainant, it is open to you to tell the university *what you would like to see happen* in the matter. It sounds like your desired outcome is for there to be some punishment that is not as severe as termination. If you want to, you could write a submission to the assessors who are reviewing your complaint and let them know the desired outcome you have in mind. This will not be binding on the university (they might impose a more or less severe punishment), but they might consider it to be a relevant factor in making their own determination of a punishment (in the event that the professor is found to have breached the university rules).
>
> Tenured professors are never fireable, right?
>
>
>
Wrong.
>
> And disability harassment is not as bad as sexual harassment, right?
>
>
>
Generally right, but depends on specifics.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/09
| 1,271
| 5,191
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a subject in uni called "Academic Writing". I don't know if that's a thing in the US or other parts of Europe.
But anyways my professor told us that, and I quote "Citing somebodies work means you agree with them.". But I'm not sure how true this is, like I've read a lot of works before where the author cites somebody else, just to sorta highlight their beliefs about a particular issue. What do you all think?<issue_comment>username_1: Your professor seems to be thinking of a case in which you use (and cite) the work of another to support (or background) your own work. There are other reasons, however. In fact, in a critical response to an article, you cite it precisely because you don't agree with it.
So, it depends on your reason for citation. Sometimes, in academic writing, it is even necessary to give contrary evidence when you think that your evidence is stronger in a different direction, just to give the reader a full picture.
But, normally, when you disagree with an author you cite, you say something about why you disagree.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Consider if you were writing a scientific article as a response or rebuttal to another (methodological concerns, misinterpreting data, the field has changed around the original work and what was once considered true maybe no longer is, etc.) This happens fairly often in my field, and a healthy sense of skepticism and replication is good for science. You should still cite the original work, even if you're spending many hours, pages, and words to outright disagree with and deny the claims of the original!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You do not. In fact, in most cases, I would think that readers assume that a citation is a neutral statement of fact such as in the following:
>
> This question has also been investigated by Smith et al. [23].
>
>
>
There are of course cases where a citation is clearly an endorsement:
>
> In the excellent article by Smith et al. [23], the authors investigate this question.
>
>
>
And then there are cases where you clearly disagree with a paper you cite:
>
> We agree with the summary presented in Jones et al. [23], but note that others have come to conclusions that are either in contradiction to the data we present here (see, for example, Smith et al. [24]) or have used methodologies we believe are not adequate for the question they investigate (e.g. Kavanaugh et al., [25]) or are clearly nonsensical (Thomas et al. [26]).
>
>
>
In other words, *context matters*: You can clearly express what your position is on an article you cite.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Citing material certainly does **not** mean you agree with it. For example, rebuttal papers need to the cite the paper that is being rebutted yet clearly do not agree with the result.
However, we don't live in a perfectly rational word. Often papers and careers are judged heavily by citation counts. With such a metric, there's no differentiation between "cited because we thought it was good influential work" and "cited because we believe the conclusion was flawed".
In this light, I think the most generous (but also pessimistic) interpretation of "Citing somebodies work means you agree with them" is that you may write a rebuttal but it's possible that the increased citations *help* the author's career, unless you are really able to turn the tide of opinion about their work to the larger academic community.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: A research paper should detail both sides of an topic - citing authors you do not agree with is the standard from my experience.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Short answer: no.
Mainly commenting to add my theory on where your professor might be coming from. I have a background in both social sciences and STEM - specifically Cultural Anthropology and Computer Sciences. In my observations, it's diametrically opposite situation in both - in the first you'd constantly be reading academic papers based around disagreeing with someone else's research/conclusions. But in CS, my impression was, the base would be multiple papers justifying your thesis and the author in a way continuing the thread of inquiry.
Now the even more subjective part of my answer. Honestly, I think disagreeing, even in academic circles, is more salacious than agreeing and continuing the same work. But in STEM it's harder to argue against hard facts, hence you don't see it as much.
Therefore my assumption is your professor is from STEM background where you can literally name the people who disagreed with prior research because it was that groundbreaking. Eg, heliocentrism, gravity, quantum mechanics all redefined our understanding of the Universe and we don't see papers like that on the daily in STEM.
But if you're working with topics that might be a step towards the social sciences side, eg, human–computer interaction, it's all the more important to be comfortable with disagreeing with prior research. And since you're asking such a valid question, I think you're on the right path when it comes to having the gall to simply question things.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/09
| 376
| 1,681
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to apply for a research position. There are several questions in the formula that I have to fill up. One is "The capacity to get research funding". I do not understand what I have to write as an answer for this sentence. Is it enough to put the previous fundings that I got? A couple of years ago, after my Phd I was awarded a research grant. Do I need to explain anything special about them? Or just list them. They asked this question along with some other questions under the title "Selection Criteria".
Thanks for your help and time.<issue_comment>username_1: It is impossible to know how much detail they require unless you ask them. Assuming you have a history of successful funding, just ask how much detail they want beyond a list of past success.
A few words about the relevance of your research to potential funding organizations would probably be wise to add in any case.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: What you want to do with your answer is to make the case that you will most likely get grants in the future, if you were to be hired.
That you have been successful with a grant application in the past tends to be the best factual basis for such a claim. However, your narrative should be forward-looking. Is the grant you got similar to those grants you'd be applying for in that position? If not, how will you adapt? Do you have other good ideas for grants? Are you aware of the relevant funding bodies?
I'd expect this question to be one of the most important ones, if not ***the*** most important one. The amount of detail you give compared to other questions should probably reflect that.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/10
| 1,385
| 5,344
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose a candidate finishing their PhD (in mathematics) is applying for teaching-oriented positions at universities, such as Assistant Teaching Professor, Assistant Professor of Instruction, Clinical Assistant Professor, or Lecturer. While these positions are typically not tenure-track, many of them are also not considered "temporary" positions. [For example](https://jobs.chronicle.com/job/37323147/teaching-track-faculty-position-in-mathematical-sciences-ay2223):
>
> These non-tenure-track faculty positions are considered career positions that are not temporary, but with the expectation of reappointment and promotion.
>
>
>
(And disregarding the university's perspective, I believe a position is deemed non-temporary for US immigration purposes as long as there is a guaranteed funding for a minimum of three years.)
Depending on the university, these non-temporary teaching positions may be eligible for permanent residence sponsorship through EB-2 Special Handling Labor Certification (“PERM”). For example, University of Wisconson [includes](https://ifss.wisc.edu/pr-eb-2-special-handling-labor-certification/) “Clinical and CHS faculty with primary teaching responsibilities who were offered the job within the past 18 months after a proper national recruitment was conducted” in the list of eligible individuals.
**Question:** Is it considered appropriate for the recruited employee to inquire about the university's willingness to submit an EB-2 special handling petition, as well as about the level of endorsement from the department, once an offer has been received?
On the one hand, it seems to me that it is inappropriate, because they don't know about how well the candidate would perform their teaching duties, whether they would want to keep them, and whether the department would be willing to pay all the processing fees (which the department is obliged to do by law, as far as I know). But on the other hand, EB-2 special handling petitions must be filed [within 18 months from when the final recruitment was posted](https://www.vanderbilt.edu/administration/immigration/overview_permanent_residency_options.php#eb2a). So if it was posted in October 2020, the petition must be filed by April 2022, and by that time the candidate will have only worked one full semester at the university (assuming they started in Fall 2021), and it's still hard to evaluate their performance. (Edit: Some sources [suggest](https://siss.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk631/files/local_resources/docs/dept-forms/PR-Forms/SpecialHandlingFAQ.pdf) that it is “within 18 months of the final selection of the scholar by
the University”, in which case the university may have two semesters of teaching evidence instead of one.) While some universities have an official policy, such as [requiring candidates to work for a year before initiating any immigration petitions](https://internationalservices.georgetown.edu/scholars/permanent-residency/) (in such cases, it is unclear how they handle the filing of EB-2, possibly through re-hiring or considering EB-1 instead), many universities do not have a clearly defined publicly available policy regarding this matter. And even if they do, it still wouldn't hurt to make sure that it is still in force.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Question: Is it considered appropriate for the recruited employee to inquire about the university's willingness to submit an EB-2 special handling petition
>
>
>
If the university/college has a Policy or Guideline or Rule for PERM, like that of [Brandeis](https://www.brandeis.edu/isso/scholars-staff/permanent-residence/eb2-perm-handling.html) or the University of Wisconson you quoted, then it is appropriate to inquire.
If otherwise, you might have to 'sell' the idea/concept to them: I'll presume at the time of offer.
RE 'sell': concise well researched brief.
[Seltzer](https://theseltzerfirm.com/immigration-options/the-perm-process/outstanding-researcher-vs-special-handling-perm/) has an interesting write-up on PERM with reference to case law worth exploring.
[Form I-140 petitions for EB2-1 Advanced degree](https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/) seems to enjoy relatively fast processing for now. Obviously, there're no guarantees.
[Addendum] You might want to give [EB2-NIW](https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-second-preference-eb-2) a shot.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If you don’t ask, you won’t know. Yes, it’s appropriate to ask. And if it’s a difficult question to answer for the reasons you outlined, well, answering a difficult question is one of the things that people in high level decision making positions (e.g., department chair, hiring committee chair) are paid to do. So the fact that the regulations regarding EB-2 special handling petitions may force the department to make a risky decision is not a reason not to ask the question. Moreover, a well-run university and department will likely have a standard policy on such matters, since the question is likely to come up routinely. In that case, the question won’t even inconvenience anyone.
The answer may not be what you want to hear, but it’s appropriate to ask.
Source: personal experience as professor and former department chair.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/11
| 790
| 3,629
|
<issue_start>username_0: A week ago, I have received an invitation to review a manuscript in Applied Mathematics by an Elsevier journal and I was given a deadline of two weeks to reply to the invitation. As I was a little bit occupied, I have decided that I will respond to the invitation a week after receiving the invitation, in order to scope through the abstract.
When I logged into the system a week later, I noticed that the paper was submitted two months earlier and the editor accepted it for publication with only one referee report, which was positive. This acceptance happened approximately a week after inviting me.
Going through the manuscript now, I have some minor comments about the paper, but what I need to know is if it is a common practice to accept a paper with one report, even when dealing with applied mathematics papers rather than papers in pure mathematics.<issue_comment>username_1: It is normal to solicit more than one review of a paper. Its perfectly normal for the editor to decide to publish if only one of the two reviews is positive, and the editor feels the positive reviewer has the more reasonable case (or vice versa). Its not common, at least in my field (not quite applied math) to publish if only one review has been recieved. However at some journals, its considered acceptable to only have one external reviewer if the editor is an expert in the topic of the paper, with the editor effectively acting as the second reviewer themselves.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think it is common practice. Regardless of the field, I think it might be a waste of time to invite multiple reviewers and not waiting for all to respond. It is just two weeks, this is already a rather short period of time! What if you invested a substantial amount of time reviewing the paper or you found issues that require major revision?
I also consider this behavior by the editor as impolite with respect to you as a reviewer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know what the typical timelines are in applied mathematics, but based on your description, what you experienced is highly unusual.
Usually when editors invite reviewers and ask for a response after X time, they will wait X time before doing something. So the fact that your editor did something before X time passed is already unusual. If it happens, I would guess that they are making an accelerated decision for whatever reason (e.g. they received confidential information that made further review unnecessary) - but in this case the result is likely to be 'reject'. That you see an 'accept' decision is unusual.
It could be that the journal is one of those hyper-accelerated ones where they prioritize the time taken from submission to decision, but even that would be unusual, because such a journal is very unlikely to give you two weeks to respond to the review invitation. Two weeks to submit the review, maybe, but not two weeks to accept/decline the invitation. In fact, it's unusual to give you two weeks to accept/decline; usually there is no deadline to respond.
Other unusual things in your description are 1) you are apparently able to see the other reviews before submitting your own, and 2) you are apparently able to submit a review even after an accept decision is made (usually once an accept decision is made, all outstanding reviews are cancelled). Even your decision to respond to the invitation a week after receiving it is unusual (usually the probability of a reviewer responding drops rapidly with time, unless a reminder is sent).
So: everything in your description is unusual.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/12
| 2,242
| 9,283
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is your advice on how to select a graduate advisor? What are the
* must have,
* good to have,
* must avoid, and
* "run, disaster ahead"?
traits in a PhD advisor? How does one get this information? It would be good if you can site specific real world examples<issue_comment>username_1: Choose someone who has the reputation for being a good mentor, providing well for their group, and for creating a healthy working environment. Graduate research is highly uncertain and can be extremely stressful. So, a constructive environment and stable support are very important. Your graduate advisor can also serve as a mentor and champion throughout your career.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: You need three broad pieces of information, and all of them can be hard to get for one reason or another.
**First**, you need someone compatible with your learning style. The problem is, you may not know your learning style, even into your twenties. And assuming you do, there's little more anyone here can say except, "Try to match it." (How do you find out? Ask members of this person's research group.)
**Second**, you need someone who isn't outright abusive. Abuse can take many forms, by the way, it's not always as clear cut as demanding sexual favors or demanding unpaid work outside the university. It can be ongoing neglect. It can be habitually throwing you under the bus at group meetings. It can be constant disrespect in front of peers. It can be transparently treating you as a game piece on the way to their next goal. It can be abusing your trust or confidence. It can be credit stealing or playing games with authorship. It can be fobbing lecture duty off on their grad students. It can be a lot of different things.
You would *think* that would be easy to detect, but it isn't always.
I was hypervigilant for this, and still got trapped. (I theorize now, because everyone else was keeping their heads down, trying to get out. But I'll never know.)
**Third**, you need someone who has demonstrated that they can *regularly* move students through the process to either a master's degree or a PhD. This, you at least have a chance at. If you see someone who has a regular stream of graduates, that's a good sign. If you don't, that's a bad sign. A new-ish faculty member with two graduated PhDs and three in the pipeline is very different from someone who's been there 15-20 years with only two graduated PhDs. If possible, you want to look at the ratio of successful candidates to candidates. In some departments that will not be easy to get.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I like most of what username_2 said in their answer, but I think there is even more.
In addition to username_2' points:
* Try to match what you care about. Some professors value deep contributions to science more than publishability, some value having many publications in good venues, some care most that you have a good PhD experience. None of those is inherently bad, as long as you are on the same page.
* Related, but not the same: try to match your level of ambitions. Some professors want all their students to not only meet the graduation requirements, but excel (typically, but not only, these are professors that are still building their careers). If you are on a tenure track, a student that barely meets graduation requirements may already be a personal disaster for the prof. Again, it's important to be on the same page. As a sidenote, most people would probably be in "I want to excel" bucket here, but do some soul searching - how will you feel if your advisor asks you to revise and revise a paper until it's finally ready for some A\* venue, even at the cost of your free time and graduation plans?
* Match for your preferred management style. Do you want a lot of help, or a lot of freedom? What kind of help do you expect (Defining research questions and methods? Coding? Writing?). How often do you want to meet?
* Do you want to work in a large group with lots of collaborations, or would you prefer being the only student of this professor? Both have advantages and disadvantages - in a large group there are lots of opportunities for peer learning and joint work, but naturally the time your prof will have for you specifically decreases the more students they work with.
* What feedback style do you prefer? Do you want somebody who is brutally honest, or somebody who tries to see the bright side even when your work isn't quite up to standards yet?
* Align not only on what research problems should be addressed in your PhD, but also on methodology. What this means specifically may be different from discipline to discipline, but you should not only discuss what goals your PhD should have, but also what the activities to reach this goal will look like. You don't want, e.g., go into your PhD assuming you will build lots of tools when your professor only cares about empirical studies.
* I am sure there are more things I am not thinking of right now ...
All that is to say, there are many, many things to consider, and much of that is hard to find out in advance. The best strategy is to (a) look very carefully at what your advisor has been publishing recently (assume that you will have to write papers similar to these), (b) try to talk to current or previous students of this advisor, and (c) *remain flexible*. At the end of the day your advisor *will* have characteristics that you don't love (just as you will not be the "perfect" student for your advisor). Ideally, both sides make small compromises on the way to a successful graduation.
P.S.: because of the need to make small compromises I would not recommend being "hypervigilant" (as username_2 says in their answer) - be critical when selecting your advisor, but once there I would give them the benefit of doubt. Constantly being on the lookout for issues and escalating each disagreement is a difficult way to actually finish - in a 5-year close collaboration, you will get into arguments and you will see things differently at some point. Your advisor is also human, they will make mistakes, choose their words poorly, or have bad days. Resolving these conflicts constructively is a superpower, not only in academia but also in any other professional endeavour.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Try to talk to the grad students and post-docs who are currently in the department. Find out what they think of the *other* profs besides their own. Do ask them about their own but find out what the cross views are. See if you can get some views from people not directly affected by the prof you are thinking about.
Also, get them to "dish" on the other grad students and post-docs and such. You will be working nearby most of them for much of your degree. You are going to want to know which ones are helpful and which ones you need to avoid if possible.
For example, if you are looking at a prof doing XYZ, and the department also does PDQ that is quite far from XYZ, wander over to the PDQ students and ask them "What do you think of the other profs?" For me it was physics. And the department had a big particle physics group and a big laser physics group. The laser physics group was more than happy to "dish" on the profs in the particle physics group. They got a little more quiet when it came to their own profs.
Find out where students of this prof have wound up after graduating. I went through physics. There is a magazine called Physics Today that lists recent grads and where they got jobs. Check out the equiv for your subject area. Find where various profs got their students jobs. Or post docs or whatever. (Your uni library will most likely have some guidance on this question.)
So one prof when I was a PhD candidate graduated three people with PhDs during the last few years of my grad work. Two got post docs at major labs, CERN for one and FermiLab for the other. The third student got a post doc at a major US university. If you were doing particle physics experimental, that would probably be a big bright glowing indicator of promise.
A prof in another area (laser physics) also graduated three students. One became a high school teacher, one got a job at [Ontario Science Centre.](https://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/?gclid=CjwKCAjwhJukBhBPEiwAniIcNSwjNlw2X7iD7onFhnZ-juXxnkfGvoUhku9xdnhT60ojXzLvbz6zQBoC2esQAvD_BwE) And the third was not listed as having a job. So you would have a different set of evaluations for that prof.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: First, do not judge by first impressions as these can be very wrong.
Second, you should feel comfortable talking to the person. This person is helping you develop into a researcher, you should not feel nervous knocking on their door and going to speak to them about some problem.
Third, you might want to check if the supervisor has a good track record with training students who go on to get permanent jobs in academia, rather than people who perhaps make it as far as postdoc and then no further than that. Some other people are suggesting that if the supervisor gets a lot of people to postdoc level than they are a good supervisor, but I think you should look longer term than that, as getting a postdoc is not as difficult as it used to be.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/12
| 1,069
| 3,897
|
<issue_start>username_0: If not, can one refer to any formal (written) prohibition of wearing caps for lecturers, in a North American university?
The cap may be text-less or have any non-offensive text/image.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no dress-code at my university nor at my previous universities. The only ones wearing caps are undergraduates who are rumored to (a) not had time to shower in the morning, (b) worried about bad hair, (c) be socially inept. ;)
Wearing a cap or a hat indoors is still considered bad etiquette and would elicit comments by colleagues. They might also assume a good reason for covering up ones head such as an injury - bandages or some other medical condition. (Edited: Or because of religious tenets etc.)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: This is entirely context dependent from my experience. Most universities are quite casual now. As others have noted, it is also dependent on what department you're in as to what the informal dress code is. Also, I expect seniority plays in. If you're a PhD teaching assistant you could easily get away with dressing more casually than a full professor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I very much doubt that you're going to get a positive answer, and a negative answer ("there is no such rule at any North American university") would be almost impossible. I've never heard of a dress code for faculty at a North American university (again, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist somewhere, even at an institution where I've been ...)
As support for the claim that this probably doesn't exist, I looked up the [dress code at Brigham Young University](https://policy.byu.edu/view/dress-and-grooming-standards), which is likely to have among the strictest/most conservative rules. The code applies to "students, staff, and faculty", but hats are not mentioned, either for men or women:
>
> Men
>
>
>
>
> A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, revealing, or form fitting. Shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extreme styles or colors, and trimmed above the collar, leaving the ear uncovered. Sideburns should not extend below the earlobe or onto the cheek. If worn, moustaches should be neatly trimmed and may not extend beyond or below the corners of the mouth. Men are expected to be clean-shaven; beards are not acceptable. Earrings and other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
>
>
>
>
> Women
>
>
>
>
> A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
>
>
>
(I also looked at the dress code for [Oral Roberts University](https://handbookdev.oru.edu/section-2/university-regulations/), another religious university: the rules only apply to students, but again nothing is mentioned about hats for either men or women ...)
As mentioned by commenters, even if there were such a rule there would probably be an exception made for religious observance (Jewish kippot/yarmulkes, Sikh turbans, etc.)
(The only prohibition on hats I've encountered is that *students* [are sometimes forbidden to wear hats with brims that project in front during exams](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-you-not-allowed-to-wear-baseball-caps-during-an-exam) — if they're wearing a baseball cap they have to turn the brim to the back, so that the proctors/invigilators can see where they're looking.)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/12
| 570
| 2,157
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am bit confused in which tense I should write the conclusion of existing studies in literature review.
For example in past tense, I write the methodology and result of a study. Now I want to write
>
> The findings provide a strong technical foundation for ......
>
>
>
Or should I write
>
> The findings provided a strong technical foundation for ......
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: The difference is very slight. If the findings still provide a strong technical foundation, the presence tense would be more accurate. If you use the past, you might be seen to indicate that they once did, but no longer do provide a strong technical foundation, e.g. because the field has moved on to a better analysis.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I suggest present tense. <NAME> (*[Scientific Writing and Communication](https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/XpQrzwEACAAJ?hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWpuKz4r3_AhX6j4kEHaXrD48Q8fIDegQIDBAK)*, fifth edition) suggests in 4.4 (Tense) that one should
>
> Use past tense for observations and specific conclusions
>
>
>
>
> Use present tense for general rules and established knowledge
>
>
>
Hofmann expands on the latter:
>
> You should use present tense for general rules, accepted facts, and established knowledge. Thus, results from already published papers should be described in the present tense as published results are generally assumed to be "facts." Similarly, if something is a general rule or fact that is still true in the present, use present tense.
>
>
> If you use past tense for describing results of already published work, you are implying to the reader that you do not consider these results to be "facts" but observations.
>
>
>
In your case, you are reporting on the *findings* of a study. Those are results that provide a technical foundation for something. That suggests that the results are still true. So you should probably use present tense.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To stress the point of the present tense write:
>
> There is a strong technical foundation (citation) for...
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/12
| 873
| 3,498
|
<issue_start>username_0: During a conference last winter, I had the opportunity to have an informal interview with a PI from "University A" in Boston. Although the position was not immediately available, there may be a potential opening for Spring 2024. After our discussion, PI-A expressed interest in staying in touch.
I have a talk scheduled with PI-B's lab at "University B" in Boston in a few weeks as part of a post-doc interview. While in town, I would like to reconnect with the PI from University A to maintain a professional network and discuss potential future opportunities. I am unsure about the best approach and would appreciate your advice on the following options:
1. Emailing PI-A to request a meeting over a cup of coffee during my visit to Boston. PI-A seemed open to this idea during our previous encounter, so it may be appropriate to extend the invitation.
2. Inviting PI-A to attend my talk at University B. While PI-A's
availability may be limited, it could provide an opportunity to
reconnect. However, I wonder if it would be better just to email
them and invite them for coffee instead.
How appropriate is it to invite PI-A to my talk at PI-B's lab? I am concerned about the implications for my opportunity with Lab-B. Should I seek approval from PI-B's lab manager first? My proposed approach would be to mention that a colleague from University A is interested in attending the talk if it suits their schedule. Subsequently, I would reach out to PI-A to gauge their interest.
Lastly, I would like to know how appropriate it is to invite someone I had an informal interview with to engage in scientific discussions over coffee.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> How appropriate is it to invite PI-A to my talk at PI-B's lab? I am concerned about the implications for my opportunity with Lab-B. Should I seek approval from PI-B's lab manager first?
>
>
>
If this is a public talk, as I think university talks usually are, then you shouldn't need approval from PI-B's lab manager. After all, PI-A has as much right to join as anyone. If it's not public, I would just briefly ask PI-B if they'd be OK with inviting PI-A. They probably know each other, so it should probably be fine if they're not mortal enemies.
Inviting PI-A to your talk at University B does not rule out meeting up with PI-A at university A later.
In the final year of my PhD, I gave a short talk at the university in Boulder (Colorado, USA), and to my surprise, a senior scientist I knew from a nearby research lab just outside town came over to listen. He must have found out about it somehow, but not from me. It was good for me, as my main aim with the visit was to network for the purpose of finding post-doc opportunities in the first place, and due to time issues I had not scheduled any visit to the research lab in question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Aside from options 1 and 2, which you mentioned, there exists option 3:
you can inform PI-A that you will be in town for a seminar, and that, if he is interested, you will be happy to give the same seminar for his group.
[ As we all know, the schedule of official seminars is prepared well in advance, but it is not uncommon to hold an informal "brown-bag seminar" on an *ad hoc* basis. ]
Such a suggestion would leave to PI-A several oportunities to choose from: to agree to hold an informal talk, or instead to attend your talk at university B, or simply to invite you for a meeting over a cup of coffee.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/12
| 904
| 3,786
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied last year for a MSCA individual fellowship and was waitlisted. Last week my proposal was moved from the waitlist into the grant preparation phase. Due to this delay I have committed myself to a different position and would defer the MSCA fellowship start date by 1 year. The grant preparation phase including the final signatures of all parties is not affected by this shift and ideally would proceed in the next weeks. This is well over a year before the start date of the fellowship.
This is all a great success, however, if possible, I would still want to apply to a select number of positions in the coming year. One reasons for this is mostly to secure a postdoc of length 3 years or more. The MSCA fellowship is capped at 2 years. I will not be able to complete these applications before the date set for finalization of the MSCA fellowship.
What are the consequences of accepting and fully finalizing an MSCA fellowship and then withdrawing in favor of a different academic position? Is it (legally) possible? Does it make a difference if this position is a postdoc or faculty position?<issue_comment>username_1: Important point: a PostDoc position is a transition from what is often the most stable position in research (PhD) to something even more stable (professorship or moving outside of academia).
There are exceptions to this (i.e. postdoc staying so long in one institution that they become really needed and therefore will be employed as full-time technicians or researchers) but they are statistically negligible, so do not count on them.
After a 2-year MSCA you have much higher chances to land a professorship of some sort, somewhere.
A postdoc time of 3 years Postdoc does not help more than that. And 2 years postdoc are enough to make up your mind if you want to stay in the academia or go away from it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don’t want to sound blunt, but what do you think your chances are of securing three year funding? There are very few guarantees, so with a Marie Curie fellowship you are very well set and also well positioned for future up funding at this point in your career.
As you undoubtedly know many postdoc fellowships will not allow you to be in your new host lab for more than a year, so I can see that you would want to apply for them asap. But don’t burn a bridge you cannot afford to burn yet. In the wonderful case where you do get another 3 year fellowship you might even defer that one so you can finish the Marie curie first or at least half way. Pretty sure you are not the first to do that with postdoc fellowships.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Ill leave others to discuss if its a good idea or not, but of course you can accept a fellowship and then not end up taking it.
In the end, a fellowship is just a contract. We don't have bonded labour in the modern age, and so of course these is no legal obligation to work for someone with the possibility of escape.
just about possible people involved could sue for breach of contract,but this is highly unlikely, as their costs for sueing would be higher than any damages they might be awarded by at least one order of magnitude. And that is only if the contact doesnt contain a break clause, which it almost certainly does.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: MSCA postdocs can be terminated during or before the fellowship even after the final signature in the grant agreement process by the researcher. There is no administrative obstruction and it usually occurs when researchers are offered a better, for example permanent, position. In particular when the fellowship is deferred by a year, I encourage to continue applying to positions leading up to and throughout the fellowship.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/13
| 522
| 2,080
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am curious if it is acceptable to write another article based on the analysis that has already been included in the supporting information that was published together with a peer-reviewed article online.
FYI:
The supporting information was available online only but open-access.
The analysis includes descriptives, models, and a few paragraphs summarizing the model output (no literature review, methodology, discussions, conclusions, etc.)
The new article is about a brand new topic that was not discussed in the article that has already been published. I put the analysis into the supporting information because the reviewer/editor wanted a "full analysis of any variables that have been used" but then they thought the article is too long and asked me to throw the less/non-relevant model outputs into the supporting information. It is such a pity that the data and analysis could make a greater influence if published as an independent article so I wonder if it is possible to make use of the supporting information/appendix and write another article. Of course, I don't want to get myself into the trouble of self-plagiarism...
Any idea?<issue_comment>username_1: I would only be self-plagiarism if you fail to cite earlier work, but I doubt that is your plan.
However, an editor and reviewers will need to judge whether the new work is sufficiently new (i.e. 'novel') to warrant publication. Your judgement that it is, might differ from theirs. You can write it up and submit it, however. Just cite your earlier work.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I've seen appendices (I work in econometrics and statistics) that are orders of magnitude longer than the articles themselves. So, assuming it's original enough, it's possible. [This paper](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01621459.2021.1928513) has, in the depths of its appendix, a section on differential privacy. Vishal, one of the authors on [an extension to this method](https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3341617.3326152), has a paper drafted about it now.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/06/14
| 2,555
| 11,290
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently reviewed an article submitted to an academic journal and recommended that the editor reject the submission (which he did). There were no errors or problems with the submitted article, but I felt that it represented a marginal advancement that did not justify a whole article in a high-impact journal.
Now I've been invited to review the exact same article for a different journal, which is slightly lower-impact but still quite high. Both journals request that submitters suggest reviewers (which is common in my field), and I suspect that the paper authors probably suggested me both times. I don't know the authors personally, but I'm the lead author of one of the main references that they drew on, so I'm a natural candidate reviewer. (And it's a fairly obscure topic, so there aren't many other experts who would be natural alternatives.) Moreover, it's standard in my field for reviewers to remain anonymous, so the authors have no way to know that I already recommended that the first journal reject the submission.
If I accept this new offer to review, then I would be inclined to recommend rejection for the same reason as last time. But I'm concerned that this scenario could play out identically many more times. I don't think this paper is appropriate for publication in any of the top, say, five journals in my field (if not more). I could imagine a scenario where the authors keep resubmitting to more journals, recommending me as a reviewer every time, and never having any way to know that the same reviewer keeps rejecting them every time. It doesn't seem either (a) fair to the paper authors or (b) a good use of my time to keep playing out that same scenario over and over again.
What should I do? Accept the invitation to review and recommend rejection again? Decline this and any future invitations to review this particular paper? Contact the authors directly and recommend that they no longer nominate me as a candidate reviewer in future submissions (if in fact they did)? Would the best course of action change on the third, fourth, or fifth go-around?
(**ETA**: I'm one of a small number of natural candidate reviewers, but not the only one. If the authors receive an identical review from an anonymous reviewer, then they'll know that they got the same reviewer twice, but they probably won't be able to figure out exactly who that reviewer was and stop recommending me as a candidate reviewer.)<issue_comment>username_1: You should accept the invitation. That's because you've already read the paper before, so you can do the review much faster than anyone else can. In fact, you can just attach your previous review and say "I reviewed this manuscript for X, the authors have not addressed my previous review, so I still recommend rejection". This would also make it clear to the authors that it's the same reviewer recommending rejection.
If the manuscript is rejected again, could you be invited to review it again for yet another journal? You could, but you can once again send the new journal your old review. It's 10 minutes of your time vs. several hours of someone else's time, so it's still worth it.
If you're concerned your review might not be fair to the authors, you could add in the confidential comments to editor box that they might want to get another reviewer.
Finally, about the possibility that you are nominated as a reviewer by the authors, my (admittedly biased) experience is that it's significantly more probable that you were selected as a reviewer because you're the lead author of one of the main references the authors drew on, than because you were suggested by the authors. Contacting the authors will do no good, unless you tell them to exclude you as a reviewer for future submissions - but then you also reveal that you are one of the reviewers, and are you sure you want to do that?
**Edit**: Given that there are no errors in the paper and the only issue is that it's not a very significant result, the best course of action is probably to outright tell the authors (in the review) what journal you think is appropriate. Then if you receive more invitations from journals that are higher-ranked that the journal you suggested, you can keep sending the journal the review you've already written.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is no need to decline to review a manuscript that you have already reviewed. It is not unusual that manuscripts will trickle down the perceived ladder of impact journals since authors commonly try for the highest possible impact journal to begin with. Sadly sometimes rejection at some level does not lead to improvements before submitting to a percieved lower tier journals. Hence the value of reviewers following up on reviews can be of large value of editors of any second target journals for the manuscript.
The fact that a specfific journal rejects a a manuscript does not neessarily mean the manuscipt is not worthy of publication. Clearly the evaluation has to be made at the reviewer-editor level. Rejection can occur for several reasons which is commonly up to the journal editor based on a couple of reviews. Just because one reviewer disagrees with some notion does not mean a manuscipt will be deemed pointless. Hence continued review feedback will be useful to make sure a manuscript will continute to be be improved to the point of potentially arrive at a point of being acceptable fo publication.
So, as a reviewer it is always useful to pursue reviewing a manuscript through several journal pipelines if it is needed.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Your points a and b are quite fair, both to you, to the authors and to the research community at large.
You confirm your recommendation every time you review, and you are the best possible reviewer because you already went through the paper one time, so you spare some collective research time.
Admittedly you lose some of yours, but you lose ten minutes while any other peer would spend hours or days (as noted in the comments, this depends on paper and field).
If you think that even this is unfair, I recommend you to reflect on research work as a global effort (yes, with all the traps and disclaimers that apply).
The best way would be to reject and explicitly suggest a venue where to publish the same paper. Maybe the authors of the paper are a bit naive and they do not know the difference (or they do not care; who knows?). It seems you can provide a meaningful suggestion, so do it.
Just find a venue from the same publisher and include it in this second review. Then write personally to the editor telling them the hard facts you told us.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Now I've been invited to review the exact same article for a different journal, which is slightly lower-impact but still quite high.
>
>
>
Before accepting, one normally see the abstract but not the whole manuscript. On that premise, you can accept, check what has been addressed; marginally or extensively.
If barely addressed or not addressed at all (same or '*repackaged*'), you simply go ahead and *reject* again with note to the editor outlining your concerns in your question here.
If the authors have addressed, you (factually) review based on their amendments. You'll also address your concerns to the editor and username_3 suggestion also comes in (recommendation for alternate venues).
Whether explicit or generic, alternate venue recommendations might ginger the authors to reconsider their manuscript and up their game or redirect their venue shopping game.
>
> Contact the authors directly and recommend that they no longer nominate me as a candidate reviewer in future submissions ...
>
>
>
For a double-blind or single-blind, that to me will be a no-no. Irrespective, I'll not recommend direct contact with authors on ethical/etiquette basis.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Relax! You don't have the burden of the whole academic world on your shoulders!
If it is a top journal, the paper got through some quick opinions (and top journals in my field tend to get 4-6 like these). Probably you are one of maybe several referees and afterwards, it would go for a vote (and in really top journals, sometimes you want a vast majority/unanimous voting).
So you are one piece of the machine.
You should also consider the wider community - you are a top expert, probably can understand and digest their paper in X time. Maybe publishing that paper would help the whole community digest new techniques and findings?
I was in a similar boat once. Even worse, I was given a draft of the paper, gave comments and was acknowledged in the paper itself as the author used some of my techniques. I even had a prior acquaintance with the author from before.
The paper was sent to a medium tier (but on the lower end) journal, it was also a general journal and not a specialized one. I had serious doubts (the paper combined two fields, it seems it would be of low interest for people from both fields and the techniques were limited in terms of future development).
I was on the verge. Discussed matters with the editor (who is also in the field and knows me personally). He told me he had two quick opinions that supported the paper.
I asked him to ask for one more, of someone more senior than me that I trusted. He got the quick opinion and got back to me. I thought the quick opinion was a bit hasty and too positive, but also understood that maybe my prejudice as an expert who is fluent in my techniques and related ones in the field clouded my judgements. I ended up doing the referee and the paper was published (also done the referee really fast).
I think maybe a similar way of action can help in your case as well. As you said - your concerns about the paper are purely subjective and not about the correctness of the paper.
Sure my case wasn't a top 5 (not even top 10).
Another point - which might have to do with how senior you are and your judgements - assuming you kick the can further and decline the review, what would the next person in line think? Would they hold the article in high merit?
In my experience with top 5 journals, the referees are more important for verifying the paper, as the quick opinions already screened it for merit.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: You should review, note that you reviewed a previous submission at another journal and of course the advances (if any) over the previous submission and your thoughts on the advance.
You should, though, have a look at the journals review guidelines, if not done already. Most journals do not require a "reject" or whatever recommendation from the reviewer. That decision is in the end made by the editor, who knows the journals bar and requirements much better than the reviewer. In the end it could well be that the manuscript is rejected again, but not sure, since it depends on a lot of things, also on the other reviews. Be happy that not that much work is required also for a potential review at another journal.
As a reviewer, I would refrain from suggesting a journal for this manuscript, this seems patronizing to me and that's a decision of author(s). Also it could be biased by any relationship to the journal.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/14
| 501
| 2,131
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an upcoming Ph.D. student at some university in US. But I am thinking about reapplying due to the following reasons:
1. A recent project I am doing made me realize that the topic I was working in that project is the one I am truly interested in. However, as I checked my program’s website, no one in my upcoming program is working on that sub field.
2. The project also made me realize I have more potential and am capable of going to a better program. I was almost certain a with much better background this year, I am able to get into the next level school with high chance. So this might be another reason I wanna reapply.
Now that I haven’t officially started the program yet,
* I am wondering if there is anything more I can do apart from telling them I wanna reapply after the program starts.
* Should I go talk with them about it now or should I wait?
If I talk with them now, will this damage my reputation and they might tell other schools about it?<issue_comment>username_1: Being proactive and having the conversation now will serve you better in the long run. I did a similar thing recently and decided to apply to another program that was advertising for PhD students at a different university than where I am now for my masters/PhD. I think it's best to go where you're best supported and you will learn the most from your faculty/peers.
I was advised by my masters advisor that I should in fact look at other universities.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You can simply say that you are not interested in pursuing their PhD program anymore, and don't have to give an answer to "why not?". It does happen, since students often shop around in numerous programs. Even if you committed to a program, you can still pull out, and probably say "I regret to inform you that I cannot pursue the program due the family issues." Recall, many of the best candidates often pull out, and each program knows that there's a good chance another program wants them and may offer a better stipend/salary/benefits package. Thus, good candidates also carry a high risk not committing.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/14
| 782
| 3,242
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a biologist I have only published in biology journals.
This time I would like to publish a more education centered paper if I can.
This is an undergraduate course activity that should take a few weeks.
I have looked online for education journals but haven't seen a "course activity" published per se.
Wondering if this sort of thing is publishable and if so in which journals.<issue_comment>username_1: That really depends.
* Is your course activity novel (from a pedagogical point of view, not just a new topic)? It doesn't have to be earth-shatteringly different, but do your research - just because a course has not been taught in a certain way at your university does not mean it's not common practice in other places.
* Are there lessons learned that others may be interested in hearing about?
* Do you have data (at least qualitative, ideally qualitative and quantitative) that suggests your new way of teaching brings tangible benefits?
If those are true, then you can certainly write an education-focused paper. But, like with any paper, you do actually need to do your research and provide a scholarly view on your proposal, you cannot just write down what you do and call it a day.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: One of the things that makes teaching Biology so challenging is that you have to be constantly redesigning your labs to keep up with the field. Some of the changes we make are part of what is often called the "pedagogical approach", i.e. where do you place the needle in the spectra of experimentation vs. demonstration, free-flow vs. structured protocols, hands-on vs. lecture/instruction-based, narrative-based vs. not, etc. ([for example](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1319030111)) All of these issues are actively published in educational journals, and if you have data showing that your new lab activity supports better learning outcomes, well, yes, you should try to publish those results.
However, what it seems you have is just a new lab activity for which you want to get the type of publication credit that goes into a CV. There are many alternatives, some of them peer-reviewed. For example, [look at this from Genetics Society of America](https://genetics-gsa.org/education/gsa-prep/). Other possibilities, albeit not peer-reviewed, include lab sharing sites such as [Lab Exchange](https://www.labxchange.org/library). There are also many organizations with repositories of lab activities, with varying levels of curation, for example <https://most.oercommons.org/> . Most university libraries also manage repositories of Open Educational Resources (OER), which can "officially" publish your lab activity ("publish" as opposed to say, you just putting a PDF of it on your faculty profile page.)
If you think that your new lab activity is that good, I would get IRB approval, test some hypothesis related to learning outcomes and submit to a peer-reviewed journal. This is just based on my experience, but the peer-reviewed activities published by professional societies tend to become obsolete quickly and they are rarely updated. I prefer OER repositories both to place my own lab activities, and when I'm looking for ideas.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/14
| 733
| 2,819
|
<issue_start>username_0: I remembered that I ticked to share my manuscript with preprint by mistake three months ago, during the submission process
* Journal of Hazardous Materials
Some days after, my manuscript was immediate rejected (desk reject).
After that, I didn't receive any e-mails about preprint so I gradually forgot it until I submitted my paper to another magazine recently.
Several days ago, the editor (of the magazine) asked me to disclose on the Cover Letter if the manuscript has been submitted to a preprint server prior to submission on them.
I've searched SSRN, I can't locate my preprint.
° *SSRN is the [preprint server/platform for the first journal](https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-hazardous-materials/0304-3894/guide-for-authors#txt8150)*
I also searched every preprint database but couldn't find it.
What should I do next please?<issue_comment>username_1: Journal of Hazardous Materials's [Guide for authors](https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-hazardous-materials/0304-3894/guide-for-authors) mentions that
>
> During submission to Editorial Manager, you can choose to release your manuscript publicly as a preprint on the preprint server SSRN once it enters peer-review with the journal. Your choice will have no effect on the editorial process or outcome with the journal. Please note that the corresponding author is expected to seek approval from all co-authors before agreeing to release the manuscript publicly on SSRN.
>
>
> You will be notified via email when your preprint is posted online and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned. Your preprint will remain globally available free to read whether the journal accepts or rejects your manuscript.
>
>
>
If
i) your manuscript was desk rejected ("immediate rejected") and did not enter peer review,
ii) you never received an email mentioning the preprint being posted, and
iii) you have searched SSRN without finding it,
then it seems safe to assume that it was, in fact, never posted.
On the other hand, erring on the side of full disclosure is usually a good idea, so you could mention in your cover letter to the new journal that the paper was previously submitted to a journal that offered to release it as a preprint, but as far as you are aware, never actually did so.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would supplement @username_1 answer by saying, in addition
Search Google/Bing with the title of your manuscript submitted to the first journal.
If nothing comes up, then it's safe to 'conclude' that there's no preprint. Nonetheless, still follow username_1's advice of erring on the side of full disclosure.
PS: Search engines like Google *might* have a cache of your preprint if it was on a preprint server at one time, even if temporary.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/14
| 747
| 3,270
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have to say first that I am not very familiar with the world of color rendering in computer graphics, I am more closer to a physical approach of the phenomenon.
My problem is that I am writing a scientific paper in which we are recreating the perceived colours of some materials, and in which of course we are showing our results in some figures... But as always in this kind of things, how can I be sure that the colours of the figure that I am creating on my laptop will look the same on the screen of readers of my article, or on printed papers?
I know that this is impossible, but my idea was to add next to the figure a color calibration, such as a simple black-yellow-magenta-cyan square, or a ColorChecker figure... I do not know what is the convention for this kind of problems, or if one of my solutions is better than the other.
If someone has an advice, I'll take it!
[ColorChecker Example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q6e1a.png)
[CMYK Example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JOgS1.png)<issue_comment>username_1: With the possible exception of specific fields, I think you should expect most readers to read the paper on non-professional displays that lack color-calibration or full bit depth, or on a color-inaccurate printout. I've also seen publishers end up affecting color balances when compressing figures for publication in the form of .pdf files. The case of actual print journals is rare enough these days that you can probably neglect it, but if it applies you should ask them how to prepare figures for accurate color reproduction with their printing processes.
If the precise color information really matters for your paper, I think including a calibration target in generated graphics or a color rendition chart in photographs would be reasonable. Whether you include one or not, however, it would also seem worth supplying the figures either in the form of supplemental material deposited with the paper, or in a data archive cited in the paper. (If you go the data archive route, you may need to clear it with the publisher beforehand depending on how the figures are copyrighted.) That is a more robust way of communicating the exact color information, and more convenient to readers that would make use of it. Alternative ways of communicating the colors, such as including color codes in an appendix, might be workable too.
Of course, in the majority of cases good enough is... good enough. Certainly for plots and illustrations you should design them such that they're easy to read (also for color blind readers!) and don't require ideal color reproduction.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In general the advice is: Assume people print out your paper in black-and-white. They should not lose any information.
However it seems your specific paper concerns color in a direct way so this doesn't really apply. Here I would recommend to specify the exact colors you mean through one of the standardized notations like [RGB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model) or Hex or something like that. RGB (123, 23, 43) is a precise specific color. A given computer screen or printer might not render it correctly but that is on the device not on you. It is uniquely specified which color you mean.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/14
| 2,689
| 12,410
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a historian and wondering about this (hopefully not too abstruse) question: While historians (and other academics) obviously go through years of training in doctoral programs (including how to read and interpret the sources they use), most of their work in the end is done on their own sitting in a library/office etc in front of sources or the computer. That also means that when doing the actual work of reading sources and interpreting them, they are alone and have to make judgements about these sources on their own. I guess my question is how one deals with this kind of judgement calls (and ideally gets more confident about them)? And is it normal to feel some doubt at times?
To give two examples to make this more easily understandable:
1. I am working with a particular collection of primary sources at the moment. The documents themselves are pretty straightforward and easy to understand. However, for some reason at times these documents have scribbled notes written in the margins. Some of them are legible and some are not. Now, my own judgement is that these were likely added after the actual documents were written and are not of any consequence to my interpretation. But I am still not a 100% sure. I have asked the archivist and he agrees with my assessment. I plan to possibly also ask colleagues, but it is unlikely that I'll find someone that has much experience working with this collection as it has not really been studied before. The fact that I can't photograph or photocopy anything makes it even more difficult to consult others. Now, do I just have to go with my own judgement here (I would say I am 90% sure that I am correct in terms of my assessment) or will I just not be able to use these files?
2. I was once in a graduate workshop where we read primary sources together and what amazed me was that three senior professors that attended at times vehemently disagreed about the meaning of certain sources. Now these professors obviously can't hold a workshop for each source they use in their work, so despite the fact that such different interpretations can exist, they will usually just have to go with their judgement I guess and move on. And then only those few people that actually look up the source can see whether the interpretation is actually correct.
I hope I am clear enough. Basically, I am not sure how to balance making sure that I get all sources I use right and having confidence in my own judgement as a scholar. My nightmare would be that due to something like the scribbles mentiones above I get a source completely wrong and then some scholars point that out to my embarassment.
I know that this is a very historian-specific question, but more generally I would think that in any subject where one mainly works alone one would be faced with this dilemma.
Thanks for any advice!<issue_comment>username_1: In any discipline one of the most important things you can learn is to be comfortable with the possibility of being wrong.
This is both about becoming confident that your judgements are as good as anyone else, and if you are wrong, then that is not the end of the world, but also about acknowledging that you will never be certain of anything, and that interpretations always carry uncertainty. So be confident in what you think, but also be prepared to change your mind. Likely your scholarly work will contain some judgements that other scholars agree with, or that are reinforced when further information comes to light, and other judgements where the opposite is true. Knowledge rarely progresses by one person coming up with the whole truth in one go, but progresses piecemeal with future scholars taking the best pieces of each of their predecessors' work.
So, in the example you gave, you should write in your work that in your judgement it seems likely that margin notes were likely added after the documents were created, but that you can't be sure. You might like to consider how your interpretation would change if you turn out to be wrong.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally speaking, it is near-impossible to be 100% sure that your interpretation of a historical source is the "right" one. No matter how hard you work to make your analysis as correct as possible, there will always be at least one historian that completely disagrees with your analysis. For very recent textual materials (say, from the last 60-80 years) it is much easier to get the interpretation right, because we still have access to a lot of contextual data, and in some cases even the person who wrote the materials might still be alive. But the further back you go in time, it becomes increasingly difficult to interpret the meaning of the words accurately. For very old texts in the medieval or ancient periods, a single misplaced punctuation mark or a single misinterpreted word can completely change the meaning of a sentence or even a whole paragraph.
It just can't be helped. In the same way as scientific research, the field of history is one where each new generation tries to build up upon the work of previous generations. We try to pick up the things that the previous generation got right, and by accessing new materials and new research techniques, we try to correct the misinterpretations and errors found in their papers.
What is really important is that you conduct yourself with absolute professionalism at all times. Even if you find a blatant error in a history paper, always keep in mind that that person(s) was trying to do the best work they could with the resources that they had available at the time. The same is valid for your own historian colleagues still producing papers right now. Each historian has their own set of specialized skills, but they also have aspects in which they are deficient (ex: insufficient foreign language skills), which can lead to misinterpretation of historical texts. In sum, my point is: even if you completely disagree with the methods/interpretive analysis of a colleague, always explain your disagreement with sincere kindness and respect. In the future, if someone finds an error in your work, you would like them to treat you in the same way.
Regarding Question 1, at the very least you have the duty to get a basic idea of what the marginalia is trying to communicate. Even if you don't understand all of the scribbles, try to get a basic grasp of any passages that you can understand and search for other papers that analyze the same materials, to see what they have to say about the marginalia. If you think they are from a much later time period and are thus unrelated to your research topic, then you can safely ignore them. Don't be so quick to assume that these materials have not been studied much before. It is often the case that foreign historians have analyzed the materials and published papers about them in foreign languages. If you can't find any paper that deals with the topic, try to consult with a colleague or a supervisor, or try to contact by email a historian who has analyzed these materials in the past. In that case, when you write a paper, just be honest and mention clearly that you did not take the marginalia into consideration when analyzing the materials, and briefly explain why.
Regarding Question 2, your duty as a historian is to make the process of your interpretation clear to the readers of your paper. Whenever possible, try to provide an excerpt of the original passage in your paper (as a footnote), be brave enough to present your own English translation of the passage, and then explain why you decided on that particular interpretation of the text. Obviously you cannot do this for every single textual passage, but at least you should do this for very important passages that have a direct bearing on the topic of your paper. The reader should be able to follow your train of thought, and then decide whether to accept your interpretation or reject it or correct it. The value of your paper does not necessarily lie in providing the reader with the absolute "right" interpretation of the text: it is about being transparent about the methodological choices that you made when interpreting the text. In this manner, you are providing a service to the reader, you are providing clarity to them, and you are saving them time because they can evaluate your interpretation much more quickly.
Of course, you are still wondering how you can improve the accuracy of your interpretation. The secret is to collect as much information as possible about the context and conditions in which the text was written. The more contextual information you have surrounding the text's production, the easier it will be for you to discard certain interpretations in favor of others. It will also make it easier for you to interpret ambiguous passages. Unfortunately, many historians merely stick to investigating the social and economic conditions surrounding the text's author or the local community. Another potentially problematic "quick fix" solution is to merely apply some general theoretical interpretive framework on top of the text (ex: deconstruction, literary criticism, etc.), without taking into consideration other methods. People are busy, have families to take care of, and other responsibilities, so this situation is somewhat understandable. But if you can, please try to gather contextual information from other fields such as archaeology, environmental history, even paleogenetics. These fields can uncover traces of environmental disasters, epidemics and parasites, economic trade, bad crops, famines, daily habits, mass migrations and burials which can completely change your initial interpretation of the actual text. You can sometimes realize that certain ambiguous or obscure passages of the text are actually referencing times of turmoil and social anxiety caused by various environmental phenomena.
Another thing that you should try to do is take a general look at other prime materials produced around the same time around the same geographic region, and try to get an idea of how the history of that place was before the text was produced, and how it became after the text was produced. This will help you to situate the text in the broader historical conditions/trends of that region. Also try to find texts by other contemporary authors who show a different perspective around the same historical events. Identify which parts agree and disagree, and make them clear to the readers. By multiplying the number of subjective interpretive frameworks, and by multiplying the number of methodological analyses of the same text, you can actually paradoxically get a more objective interpretation, instead of a more subjective one. The more you remain in a methodological echo chamber, without considering competing perspectives, the more likely you are to get something wrong. Of course, you cannot realistically try every single approach. Just do the best you can with the time and resources that you have at your disposal.
Finally, if you are wavering between two or three possible interpretations of a textual passage, explain to the reader the merits and demerits of each one, and then be brave enough to choose one, with courage and dignity, even knowing that in the future you might be proven wrong. By presenting your work with humility, and by identifying the strong points and weak points of your interpretation (i.e., the parts where your hypothesis might be wrong), you will still be respected by your peers, even when you get some things wrong. And make no mistake, you will get some things wrong for sure! Be at peace with that fact.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: From my experience as a former public official and historian, the marginal notes in an official document could be from a meeting if it was a report, or the head of the department if it was a memo. In either case is from internal communication, even when it originated from outside the institution. The notes might contain a task and the person entrusted with it as a follow up. Even a doodle might be of interest here. It shows that the person was thinking hard or was bored with the problem. If there are different handwriting styles, it indicates that the memo had been circulating; another clue that you might follow if relevant. So, they are relevant if you are tracing a process or a document.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/14
| 2,253
| 10,484
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm research faculty (early career scholar, with more extensive professional background) with a lab at a major R1 and the PI is moving the lab to a recently upgraded R1 in a major metropolitan area. The PI has already indicated that everyone in the lab will be extended a job offer with the new university, but that there may be a pay cut due to the salary bands permitted by the receiving university. Even if the pay stays the same, it would be a higher cost of living with higher taxes, and a less generous retirement package.
Presently I'm within a fairly niche, but extremely computational field so my skills are easily transferable to industry, so moving with the lab is not mandatory but I do enjoy the type of research I do. As such, what sort of things are negotiable for research faculty? Could this move be used to justify an early promotion to associate research faculty or would that be too much of an ask?<issue_comment>username_1: In any discipline one of the most important things you can learn is to be comfortable with the possibility of being wrong.
This is both about becoming confident that your judgements are as good as anyone else, and if you are wrong, then that is not the end of the world, but also about acknowledging that you will never be certain of anything, and that interpretations always carry uncertainty. So be confident in what you think, but also be prepared to change your mind. Likely your scholarly work will contain some judgements that other scholars agree with, or that are reinforced when further information comes to light, and other judgements where the opposite is true. Knowledge rarely progresses by one person coming up with the whole truth in one go, but progresses piecemeal with future scholars taking the best pieces of each of their predecessors' work.
So, in the example you gave, you should write in your work that in your judgement it seems likely that margin notes were likely added after the documents were created, but that you can't be sure. You might like to consider how your interpretation would change if you turn out to be wrong.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally speaking, it is near-impossible to be 100% sure that your interpretation of a historical source is the "right" one. No matter how hard you work to make your analysis as correct as possible, there will always be at least one historian that completely disagrees with your analysis. For very recent textual materials (say, from the last 60-80 years) it is much easier to get the interpretation right, because we still have access to a lot of contextual data, and in some cases even the person who wrote the materials might still be alive. But the further back you go in time, it becomes increasingly difficult to interpret the meaning of the words accurately. For very old texts in the medieval or ancient periods, a single misplaced punctuation mark or a single misinterpreted word can completely change the meaning of a sentence or even a whole paragraph.
It just can't be helped. In the same way as scientific research, the field of history is one where each new generation tries to build up upon the work of previous generations. We try to pick up the things that the previous generation got right, and by accessing new materials and new research techniques, we try to correct the misinterpretations and errors found in their papers.
What is really important is that you conduct yourself with absolute professionalism at all times. Even if you find a blatant error in a history paper, always keep in mind that that person(s) was trying to do the best work they could with the resources that they had available at the time. The same is valid for your own historian colleagues still producing papers right now. Each historian has their own set of specialized skills, but they also have aspects in which they are deficient (ex: insufficient foreign language skills), which can lead to misinterpretation of historical texts. In sum, my point is: even if you completely disagree with the methods/interpretive analysis of a colleague, always explain your disagreement with sincere kindness and respect. In the future, if someone finds an error in your work, you would like them to treat you in the same way.
Regarding Question 1, at the very least you have the duty to get a basic idea of what the marginalia is trying to communicate. Even if you don't understand all of the scribbles, try to get a basic grasp of any passages that you can understand and search for other papers that analyze the same materials, to see what they have to say about the marginalia. If you think they are from a much later time period and are thus unrelated to your research topic, then you can safely ignore them. Don't be so quick to assume that these materials have not been studied much before. It is often the case that foreign historians have analyzed the materials and published papers about them in foreign languages. If you can't find any paper that deals with the topic, try to consult with a colleague or a supervisor, or try to contact by email a historian who has analyzed these materials in the past. In that case, when you write a paper, just be honest and mention clearly that you did not take the marginalia into consideration when analyzing the materials, and briefly explain why.
Regarding Question 2, your duty as a historian is to make the process of your interpretation clear to the readers of your paper. Whenever possible, try to provide an excerpt of the original passage in your paper (as a footnote), be brave enough to present your own English translation of the passage, and then explain why you decided on that particular interpretation of the text. Obviously you cannot do this for every single textual passage, but at least you should do this for very important passages that have a direct bearing on the topic of your paper. The reader should be able to follow your train of thought, and then decide whether to accept your interpretation or reject it or correct it. The value of your paper does not necessarily lie in providing the reader with the absolute "right" interpretation of the text: it is about being transparent about the methodological choices that you made when interpreting the text. In this manner, you are providing a service to the reader, you are providing clarity to them, and you are saving them time because they can evaluate your interpretation much more quickly.
Of course, you are still wondering how you can improve the accuracy of your interpretation. The secret is to collect as much information as possible about the context and conditions in which the text was written. The more contextual information you have surrounding the text's production, the easier it will be for you to discard certain interpretations in favor of others. It will also make it easier for you to interpret ambiguous passages. Unfortunately, many historians merely stick to investigating the social and economic conditions surrounding the text's author or the local community. Another potentially problematic "quick fix" solution is to merely apply some general theoretical interpretive framework on top of the text (ex: deconstruction, literary criticism, etc.), without taking into consideration other methods. People are busy, have families to take care of, and other responsibilities, so this situation is somewhat understandable. But if you can, please try to gather contextual information from other fields such as archaeology, environmental history, even paleogenetics. These fields can uncover traces of environmental disasters, epidemics and parasites, economic trade, bad crops, famines, daily habits, mass migrations and burials which can completely change your initial interpretation of the actual text. You can sometimes realize that certain ambiguous or obscure passages of the text are actually referencing times of turmoil and social anxiety caused by various environmental phenomena.
Another thing that you should try to do is take a general look at other prime materials produced around the same time around the same geographic region, and try to get an idea of how the history of that place was before the text was produced, and how it became after the text was produced. This will help you to situate the text in the broader historical conditions/trends of that region. Also try to find texts by other contemporary authors who show a different perspective around the same historical events. Identify which parts agree and disagree, and make them clear to the readers. By multiplying the number of subjective interpretive frameworks, and by multiplying the number of methodological analyses of the same text, you can actually paradoxically get a more objective interpretation, instead of a more subjective one. The more you remain in a methodological echo chamber, without considering competing perspectives, the more likely you are to get something wrong. Of course, you cannot realistically try every single approach. Just do the best you can with the time and resources that you have at your disposal.
Finally, if you are wavering between two or three possible interpretations of a textual passage, explain to the reader the merits and demerits of each one, and then be brave enough to choose one, with courage and dignity, even knowing that in the future you might be proven wrong. By presenting your work with humility, and by identifying the strong points and weak points of your interpretation (i.e., the parts where your hypothesis might be wrong), you will still be respected by your peers, even when you get some things wrong. And make no mistake, you will get some things wrong for sure! Be at peace with that fact.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: From my experience as a former public official and historian, the marginal notes in an official document could be from a meeting if it was a report, or the head of the department if it was a memo. In either case is from internal communication, even when it originated from outside the institution. The notes might contain a task and the person entrusted with it as a follow up. Even a doodle might be of interest here. It shows that the person was thinking hard or was bored with the problem. If there are different handwriting styles, it indicates that the memo had been circulating; another clue that you might follow if relevant. So, they are relevant if you are tracing a process or a document.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/14
| 405
| 1,713
|
<issue_start>username_0: I went to the US on a J-1 visa (Research Scholar) as an Adjunct Research Assistant Professor at a US University. I was only on the salary I was getting from the university without any external funding from the government or from an international organization. Is the salary I got per month considered direct or indirect funding? Thank you so much<issue_comment>username_1: [I suspect that the distinction between direct/indirect funding is one defined in immigration/visa law, and unrelated to the use of the term we academics are familiar with. But in the end, this does not matter, because:]
From a legal perspective, "external funding" is money the government (or some other organization) gives to your university and not you. Your university then pays you a salary. For the purposes of visas and similar things, what matters is that you got a salary from your university. Where the university got that money from is not important.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I am not an expert, but as far as I have the understood 212(e) 2-year return requirement, the crucial question is where did the money that funded your (exchange) stay in the USA come from. If (part of) that money was provided by the US government or by the government of your country of origin the 212(e) rule applies. This funding could have provided to you directly (e.g. in the form of a stipend), or indirectly (e.g. funds provided to your university that were used to pay your salary). So the question is: where did the money come from that the university used to pay your salary?
What exactly counts and doesn't count for this I cannot say, and you should consult an immigration expert for this.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/14
| 3,376
| 14,231
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a question related to potentially backing out of a tenure track faculty offer I signed. Ideally I'd love to get feedback from established faculty or others well-familiar with the black hole of academic faculty positions and searches. I've read all the responses to similar questions, but this is a unique situation and I'm at a loss as to what I should do -- thus input from those familiar with the 'other side' of faculty hiring would be most helpful. I would note up front **I am not asking "can I bail on a signed offer for a better one"**, as this is just something I couldn't do.
Recently (March), I signed an offer at a public university in Texas for a tenure track faculty position, Lets call it "University A". A week later, the Texas legislature began the process of moving several higher education bills into law, one ([SB18](https://www.ntdaily.com/universities-faculties-at-odds-with-texas-legislature-on-new-tenure-law/)) which sought to abolish tenure at TX public universities, and another ([SB17](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2023/05/03/texas-scientists-fear-dei-bill-could-cost-research-dollars/)) which sought to abolish [DEI](https://www.techtarget.com/searchhrsoftware/definition/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-DEI) offices and program in TX public universities. Despite assurances from multiple faculty (including the deptartment chair,) since then, these bills, in one form or another, have passed the senate and the house (effectively no chance the governor won't sign them.)
While the anti-tenure bill was modified by the House to no longer ban tenure, it still adds a litany of poorly-defined reasons a tenured faculty can be dismissed without much recourse by administrators (including "moral turpitude,") which could heavily weaken tenure, or not do much to it depending on implementation. The anti-DEI bill, however, passed with flying colors. The latter is particularly problematic, as it may have a very strong negative effect on attaining funding from multiple federal and private sources, due to their requirement of DEI/outreach components which will now be very hard to implement at public universities in Texas, having a potentially major impact on funding. Not to mention what the 'optics' of this will do to future recruitment to this department or many in TX, and possible established faculty egress as well.
During this time (following my signing, while SB18 was written to fully abolish tenure) I contacted a university/department whose search was still ongoing, but which I had already notified that I had accepted a position, to tell that I may not be as decided as I thought -- lets call it "University B". This department is now in the deciding phase, and I've been told I am a top candidate (search chair,) whatever that means in this context.
While these bills have an unequivocally negative effect on a faculty position in TX, given that the full outcome is ambiguous in the degree of negative, is it acceptable to back out of a signed offer in this unique context? Should Uni B offer me a position?
I would never be able to just bail on a signed offer for a better place, and am quite aware of how such reneging will negatively impact Uni A, but in the context of this legislation (not to mention that this is the most stressful decision I've ever made independent of said legislation) I have *major* concerns -- the landscape of the position I signed for has since changed considerably regardless of what happens. Of course, if TX had fully abolished tenure the offer I signed would be unambiguously no longer valid, which would simplify things a bit. Currently it is almost the worst place one could be with respect to reneging.
**EDIT**: A few UT AAUP links for those masochistic enough to want to see more details related to these bills:
[Analysis and history of tenure bill](https://aaup-utaustin.org/2023/05/14/texas-senate-bill-18/).
[DEI bill's potential impact on funding](https://aauputaustin.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/how-banning-dei-jeopardizes-university-research-funding-a-stem-perspective-4.pdf).<issue_comment>username_1: I'd guess that the administration will sympathize with you. There should be no problems withdrawing, especially if you point out your reasons. A tenure track position is supposed to lead to tenure and the Texas Legislature is putting that in doubt, fundamentally changing the likelihood of having a successful career in the state.
To protect yourself, however, send a letter saying that you want to withdraw in spite of signing the letter, giving reasons. If they haven't given you anything of value yet it is unlikely that there could be legal repercussions in the worst case.
Do what you think best. Good luck. There are actually places that value higher education and the contributions it makes to society.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: You are perfectly permitted to have an opinion about the ongoing changes in Texas laws.
It is ethically acceptable to back out of an acceptance due to changes outside your control that decrease its desirability to you. Particular after the administrators made representations to you about the changes that turned out not to be true. You aren't trying to game the system here.
The only case where you morally wouldn't have an out would be if you aware of the coming changes and chose to accept to "hedge your bets" without letting the other party know of your concerns.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Sorry to hear you are in this position. In the end, only you can decide what's best for you (both rationally and in line with your own moral compass). That being said, a few things to consider:
1. I would not jump ship before University B explicitly makes an offer, simply because you need to know what your alternative situation would look like (whether at University B or elswhere) should you decide NOT to join University A.
2. You are starting a tenure track. In a way, that makes the whole legislation surrounding tenure a "future" problem. All other things being equal, you could have a very successful 5-7 (however long it takes at University A) tenure track and be a highly attractive candidate for other places to hire at that point, your tenure track may turn out to be less successful for totally other (because science) reasons (knock on would that that won't happen, of course), etc. Impossible to predict what the world and your personal position will look like so many years from now (because who would have predicted today's world in 2015).
3. That makes the DEI legislation a much more "current" issue. In addition to what your own moral compass says about that, have you discussed this with others from a purely scientific/practical perspective as to how it would affect your research? Which grants would you no longer be eligible for? How does that interfere with your plans? Can University A compensate for that by changing the start up? And if money could solve this problem, how does that feel for you from a moral compass perspective?
From what you describe (in your questions and answers to other comments) it seems as if you are on good standing with your potentially future department at University A. I would definitely voice these things as concern if you can, because they should understand your struggle, I'd think.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: While I can't offer any kind of advice on whether or not there will be any legal blowback of backing out of a signed contract, the morality of the situation is quite clear, and one doesn't even need to explicitly express any kind of political opinion to see its absolute validity:
Institution A has offered you a position, and it offers you benefits x, y, z, etc. Your acceptance of this position is heavily dependent on benefit x. It is the case that benefit x is so sought-after and attractive that nearly all eligible candidates would not pursue this career choice without it, as it is the only benefit capable of offsetting the numerous downsides of the career path. For whatever reason, benefit x is now no longer on the table, and will not be offered.
From here, it should be pretty obvious that you are under no moral obligation to take this job, regardless of what you insert for benefit x. **The conditions of employment have changed**, the results being equivalent to that of a potential employer who has given you a bait and switch (even though, as you have pointed out, they are not responsible for what's happened here). And it should be obvious that the hiring committee of Institution A has no good reason to hold anything against you: they understand this proof quite well, being professors themselves. If Institution B has offered you a job with benefit x, *you take it*.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The ethical aspects are, of course, complex. Ignoring the specifics, I point out that the uni has changed the effective contract after you accepted it, so from my point of view, the uni is in breach of the contract.
You might want to check with a lawyer, but in the US it's nearly impossible to enforce a contract against an employee in a way to compel them to continue working for the employer. Also, any lawsuit would have to be pursued in TX courts, and if you're not in TX yourself, there's really no way for the uni to compel you to answer a lawsuit.
The more "interesting" part is whether the other university will hold this against you. My guess is no, but I don't know anything. Then again, whether you can get offered that job may not affect your rejection of the TX job.
An alternative strategy would be to take the TX job but intend to job-hunt for a proper tenured position next year. In that strategy, TX making hash of tenure isn't salient.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: Just (privately) examine your conscience here.
Ask yourself if it's the changes in the tenure situation at UoA that is at the heart of your sense that the appointment offered to you has been changed significantly or if it is more from fear of the consequences of the DEI bill - which you seem to think will seriously affect UoA's candidacy for many funding opportunities in your area of research.
If it's the latter, you better engage immediately with the Chair at your UoA department and explain your concerns for funding security in the future. Were his/her response to this be unconvincing, I think that should be your cue for withdrawing. I see no need to add in the changes to the tenure status in prospect at UoA as an additional reason for withdrawl.
But if your concern is mainly about the re-definition of tenure - and keep in mind that TT positions do not *guarantee* a future tenured position anyway - then I feel you would be foolish to turn down an otherwise attractive job on this ground alone. (I'm saying it's attractive to you as you have already accepted their offer before the new State of Texas laws - I am assuming that you didn't accept just because it was a vacant job and a plausible "step forward".)
It hardly needs saying that, in academia as in every other arena of life, over 2/3 of the job is about a shared commitment with the group of people in that job. Get that down right and you're in a job for as long as that department exists. The changes to tenure and DEI are things that will affect everyone in that department at UoA - everyone is in it together and this is something that should ingender much closer cooperation among faculty and across colleges in the university.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: I am a tenured full professor in life sciences at a state university in Texas, and a former department chair. For all I know it could be MY department that has made you an offer and we might have even have met during your interview processes. Over the years I've seen pretty much everything and what I'm going to say echoes some comments above. Given that the conditions have changed since the time you interviewed (even though tenure has been preserved in Texas) you should not feel any compunctions about withdrawing your offer should something that you feel more comfortable with arises soon. I should note that the policies for tenure and post-tenure review required by the legislature are policies that our Board of Regents has required for many years. The legislature would not have known or cared about that but it is reality. For now, we have escaped. I honestly have no idea how abolishing DEI offices will affect your ability to get NIH or NSF grants. I don't need to competitively renew my grants for a couple of years but even without a specific office I am confident the university will find a way to remain in compliance. BUT, my concern is over the long run. It could be that this is the beginning of Death From A Thousand Cuts. I am convinced that the people that run the state of Texas believe that education of its citizenry hurts their long-term prospects for holding on to political power and so they will do everything that they can to weaken education. On the other hand they are also very interested in money, and corporate interests within the state are aware that universities are essential for their well-being. These corporate interests tend to donate a lot of money to the people that run the state. They are part of the reason tenure survived. My recommendation is make sure you have offer B well in hand before you withdraw from offer A. I actually moved from a public university in a different state to Texas earlier in my career because I was concerned about long-term prospects of maintaining my career. It was the right move then. In fact when I accepted that first position I had it pretty well in my mind that at some point I would probably end up leaving. I stayed nine years. I got tenure and I was able to move because I had been successful. To be honest if I was younger I might consider going onto the job market again now for the same reasons. The problem is that this insanity is somewhat contagious and the number of public universities where you will be safe from this kind of thing in the future has diminished, which means finding jobs in places where you feel more comfortable becomes that much more difficult.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/14
| 849
| 3,796
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just finished refereeing a paper in math. The paper was completely incorrect and unsalvageable. The authors (very senior) made a trivial mistake (confusing two definitions), and the rest of the paper was simply incorrect. I wrote a long and constructive report with some literature to review.
Out of curiosity, I checked some of their other papers. There was another preprint on the same topic, and they made the same, fatal mistake. I was thinking of pointing this out in the report, hoping I would be helpful, but I was not sure if this was appropriate. I decided not to, to be on the safe side.
Would this have been appropriate? The paper would be rejected regardless, but I didn't want the authors to think I had a personal vendetta against them — I wrote a long report trying to be helpful.<issue_comment>username_1: Strictly speaking, you're writing a review *for the current paper*, not another one. A review is an aid for an editor to make a decision, and for authors to improve the paper, and so talking about anything other than the current paper is in some sense a waste of space and everyone's mental capacity.
That said, I do not think that it is *inappropriate*. As an author, assuming that the mistakes are honest ones, I might appreciate if someone added an appendix to a review in which they stated that in the process of reviewing, they also took a look at another one of my papers and found that it contained the same mistake. That's particularly true if that other paper is still a preprint I can fix.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: What you suggest is appropriate, constructive, and sometimes even necessary! It is important for the scientific community to do its best to maintain the accuracy of the research literature, and pointing out errors in the kind of situation you describe serves to advance thus purpose. I have certainly done this kind of thing, making authors aware of related errors in their other papers.
This issue can crop up in a couple slightly different ways. In the situation described in question, it seems like an error has infiltrated the authors' work, and it has affected more than one paper, but the papers do not depend upon one-another directly. In this case—especially if none of the work has been officially published—letting the authors know that their problem is more general and not just restricted to the specific manuscript you are reviewing gives them a chance to fix things. Most of the time, I think authors have taken this type of criticism in stride and made appropriate changes to all of their affected papers.
However, the situation can be a little trickier when the errors occur in works that that are not parallel, but rather sequential. In one case like this, a manuscript I was refereeing specifically relied on a result from another paper by (some of) the same group of authors. That paper had already been refereed and (erroneously) published, but some of its main results were incorrect (or at least, incorrectly derived). In order to explain why the manuscript I was looking at was in need of major revisions, I had to explain that the method used in the earlier paper (and incidentally, as I point out, a number of other unpublished preprints by this group of authors). In addition to laying this out in my report for the authors, I explained the situation in quite a bit of detail in my confidential report to the editor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: They are very seniors, so a rejected paper will be just a +1 in their list of rejected papers, they will not take offense for that.
Additionally, since they have a preprint on arXiv, it may not be completely off to publicly write a commentary to the preprint in arXiv directly (you may ask them if they agree).
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/15
| 507
| 2,038
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm searching for a postdoc and it seems that Lishui University recruits for its departments in Tokyo, Seoul, New York, Sidney etc. Typical job ad looks like [this.](https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3636944951)
Not even biggest universities I know have that many offshore departments, and LU wikipedia page says nothing about their foreign activity. I visited their website linked on [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lishui_University), but it is Chinese-only, and looks suspicious.
Is LU engaged in global recruitment tactic I don't understand, or is it a scam?<issue_comment>username_1: It looks like a re-shoring tactic, to bring back researchers from outside mainland China. In the past I have seen similar geo-misplaced Linkedin ads from UNSW Sydney.
The page you posted does not look any more suspicious than Stanford University or Ritsumeikan University.
Whether it is a scam or not: if you can understand how to reach the responsible person for the advertised position outside Linkedin, do it and it will be clear.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the job ad it doesn't seem like they have actual physical offshore locations per-se, rather, they're hiring for a visiting professor, and listing the various countries in their job advertisments instead of "Mainland China" may get the job ad recommended to more potential candidates willing to make the trip.
While I can't say for certain that the jobs are 100% legit, my intuition is that the listings are more for greater advertising reach rather than being a genuine scam. Somewhat related, and not intended to be a sweeping generalization, but as someone who has grown up under Asian and specifically Chinese culture, there's always been the (mis)conception that lecturers from any foreign country are more experienced and knowledgeable than local ones. A university saying "we have lecturers from all over the globe" is enough to garner some perceived prestige from potential students.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/15
| 522
| 2,380
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been wondering, how much time journal editors spend (on average) on newly submitted papers before deciding go/no-go ?
Do editors have the time to read the full paper or do they get a "feel" of it by reading the title+abstract+conclusion + maybe a few figures ?
It would be very interesting to get answers from people that are currently journal editors to explain what is the typical workflow and time dedicated to newly submitted papers.<issue_comment>username_1: Editors might not even see a desk-rejected paper, as they have trusted graduate students doing most of these rejections. These are just obvious, and result from a completely inappropriate topic to not being formatted according to the journal's template (though the latter ones are not being final).
An associate editor can also desk-reject and sometimes the decision is explicitly left to them. In this case, the editor just looked at the paper long enough to decide on the associate editor. The editor can ask the associate editor to see whether this should go to reviewers or not.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Depends on the editor. Some spend more time, some spend less. Those who handle more papers usually spend less. Those who handle one paper every three months usually spend more. There's also a personal element in that some editors have a higher bar before saying a paper is reviewable, while others have a lower bar. For example, it's possible an editor goes "This abstract is not well written, which does not inspire confidence. [Quick glance at main text] Yeah paper is not well written. We can't be sending poorly-written papers for review. Desk reject." A different editor might feel this is overly harsh to the authors, especially if they're not native English speakers, and try harder to understand the paper.
Also one needs to identify appropriate reviewers before sending a manuscript for review, and to do that one needs to have some idea what the paper is about, which means reading it. So actually sending a paper for review can take a while, even if it's clear that the paper is worth sending for review.
Personally, I usually spend less than 10 minutes, but I handle 30+ papers at any one time. Those who handle one paper every three months might spend several hours per paper, based on how fast they respond to emails.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/15
| 1,111
| 4,333
|
<issue_start>username_0: For a manuscript we were having under review, a new reviewer was invited in the second round because another reviewer dropped out.
The new reviewer proposed some new changes, including ones regarding writing style rather than science.
For example, they suggested that hypotheses development should happen in the literature review or separate sections.
We gave our reasons and cited some articles that review literature and discuss the hypothesis in the same section.
The reviewer didn’t agree and for the third revision, they only had this concern.
We still didn’t want to make these changes, as that we felt we would have to rewrite the paper.
More important, the suggestions had too much personal perspectives inside. So we argued with more evidence. It was all about writing style instead of science.
We submitted a third revision.
Note that the other reviewers recommended accepting the paper at this point.
We also wrote an email to the editor in chief as we don’t know who the associate editor was. The editor in chief said she will review everything, and make a decision. But just today, we got email saying the article was rejected and it just said, that the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting. I just feel so upset with the editor.
Shall I appeal or move on to the next journal?<issue_comment>username_1: The editor made her decision, using information she has. She is not bound by the fact that some reviewers seem to have recommended acceptance. Move on.
Before you resubmit elsewhere, try to read the referee's critical comments with an open mind. They may suggest changes that will in fact improve the paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Let her go, friend. Sometimes journals say no for silly reasons but it is still a no. If you are displeased with how your paper was handled, do not submit to this journal again.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> *We give our reasons and cite some articles that discuss LR and Hypothesis in the same section*
>
>
>
(PS: one assumes that the bulk of articles you cited are from journal A)
Personally, I don't like being *put down* on semantics of paper style, however, at times, reviewers comments are indicators that we are not communicating well enough.
So writing in explicit mode with (lay reader) clarity is an art we perfect each time.
Should literature review and hypothesis be in the same section, that I can't comment on as we are not privy to your manuscript, (nor to your field/discipline).
Can it be, it's possible. Can LR and hypothesis be split, yes they can. In this instance, we can't say.
>
> *I just feel so upset with the editor. Shall I appeal or move it on. B journal*
>
>
>
Simply put, relax, *keep calm and re-read with open mind*.
After a week or even a month, print and re-read your manuscript again. After that, likewise, re-read the reviewers comments with open mind. Then take another look at your manuscript.
Do all of this away from your desk/computer.
It might be the reviewer is off-tangent. It might be the reviewer is pedantic. It might be the reviewer got it all wrong. Yet, it might be there're golden nuggets in the comments that might yield invaluable benefits to the manuscript.
It might be, just maybe, you're not ***communicating*** well enough. At times, we oft get lost in the *authors mind* mode. We *see* what we're writing but we don't *see* what we're not communicating.
So calm down, read again.
Should you **appeal**, my understanding is that you engagement with the EiC is the appeal. If you feel otherwise, there's no harm in writing a formal *appeal* and await the outcome: Be calm, professional and scientific about it. (No emotions)
Should you *move the manuscript on to paper B*.
After the calming down process (as outlined), *improve* the manuscript and resubmit.
Rejections are fabric we all *wear with pride* as academia. Obviously, some review process (and some reviewers) can be bad experience. We shake 'em off and move on with purpose.
[Edit]
>
>
> >
> > "we argued with more evidence\*
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Most of this *evidence* effort should also reflect in the manuscript (and not only in the appeal/rebuttal). I'm just indicating (for future readers), just in case it doesn't
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/16
| 742
| 3,246
|
<issue_start>username_0: A colleague of mine has a tenured position in mathematics in Europe. He is interested to move to another country (US, Canada). In order to increase his chances to find a job, he does not mind to apply not only for tenured positions, but also for tenure track positions.
Will that increase his chances for a job? How common is such situation?
**ADD:** I am wondering whether my colleague might be considered as overqualified for a tenure track position.<issue_comment>username_1: Most people (I'd guess) moving jobs in the US, even from tenured positions have to go through a probationary period, though for a shorter period of time, perhaps two years. I've done that. It is theoretically tenure track, though not necessarily at the Assistant Professor level. In particular I was a Full Professor and kept that rank.
But this is something that can possibly be negotiated with an institution, provided they are willing to accept someone at that level and have the funds and flexibility to do so.
There are exceptions for superstars in a field, of course.
If they've advertised for an Assistant Professor position on Tenure Track they may be bound by that, or not. But it is worth talking to them to see what the options are. With a decent publication record and recommendations from colleagues it might be possible, though not everywhere.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In US institutions, once you have tenure, it is up to you/the hiring institution to negotiate being hired with tenure. This is not at all uncommon, but if the position is advertised at the Assistant level, being hired with tenure is rare due to federal or state laws.
Of course, if the position is at the Assistant, Associate or Full Professor rank, it is assumed that the new colleague will join the institution at the rank they have already earned. If the position is at the Assistant professor level, and the applicant has tenure, I would advise having that conversation only after receiving an offer. A possibility could be to negotiate a quicker (up when ready) tenure clock where the new hire's existing CV is counted towards tenure at the new institution.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It is definitely possible to apply for such positions; in fact I know people who have exactly moved from a permanent position in Europe to a tenure-track position in NA.
Key points:
1. It is often possible to negotiate early consideration for tenure or even tenure on hire. This can be brought up in the cover letter, during the interview, or when negotiating the offer
2. In the cover letter the applicant must make it clear they understand what position they are applying for and what they want -- otherwise they could be ignored as too senior. For example you can say "I understand this is a TT position and will definitely accept a TT offer". You can also add "ideally I'd like to be offered a tenured position or, failing that, a promise to early consideration for promotion and tenure". Conversely if you won't accept a TT offer you can say "I know this was advertised as a TT position -- would you consider making a tenured offer instead?" in which case the department will consider your case only if that is possible.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/16
| 1,271
| 5,743
|
<issue_start>username_0: In most fields, I think, it is common to use the acknowledgement section to thank everyone for their input who contributed to the paper but did not enough to warrant co-authorship. As a biostatistician working in medicine, however, I have experienced it several times that researchers want to include me as a co-author, although I have not contributed anything or do not even agree with the methods they used, just to make the impression that they have a professional statistician on board. In these situations, I refuse authorship, which usually puts an end to the debate.
Recently, there was one of these cases where a researcher used a methodology that was in my view inferior and even wrong and refused to follow my suggestions. They accepted my rejection of authorship, but wrote in the acknowledgement that they "thank LuckyPal for statistical support".
I feel taken advantage of, and it smells of academic misconduct. However, the journal (a quite reputable one) has no policy of requiring consent of people named in the acknowledgement section. The phrasing "statistical support" is probably broad enough to allow for interpretations that come close to the truth, so it is not plain wrong. If the authors would actually contact the journal to change the acknowledgement, it will at least look somewhat fishy from the journal's perspective.
Is it legitimate to demand to be removed from the acknowledgement?
**Follow-Up**
Thank you for the very helpful dicussion here. I asked the first author to remove my name from the acknowledgements. They first suggested to remove my name and instead thank the institute, were I am employed. This suggestion has further increased my suspicion that their goal was not to actually acknowledge my time and effort. The director of my institute disagreed with this suggestion. The author then contacted the journal, which has now actually removed the statement about statistical support or expertise from the acknowledgement completely.
I am glad that it all went well without further escalation. I will refrain from collaborating with this research group in the future.<issue_comment>username_1: The purpose of the acknowledgements is to acknowledge help and support from other people and funders. In this case the authors' did exactly that and correctly acknowledged your support. **The fact that you are mentioned in the acknowledgements does not imply that you endorse the paper** and therefore there is generally no need (and no policy) of journals to check whether the people acknowledged in the paper endorse the paper.
However, moving forward you might want to make your statistical support contingent on you signing off on the final manuscript even when you are not an author. That way you can control whether your name appears as part of the paper or not, and whether the language in the acknowledgments accurately represents your contribution. While in theory acknowledgements do not equal endorsement, I agree that there is (very small) implied endorsement by simply being associated with it. For example, I would not like my name appear in a fundamentally unethical study that's going to make the world wide news.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I disagree with the other [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/197242/33210).
To your question: *Is it legitimate to demand to be removed from the acknowledgement?*
You *should* object to being acknowledged without your permission.
For example, my agency has a federal policy against listing people in the acknowledgments without their consent (listed [here](https://www.usgs.gov/survey-manual/50210-fundamental-science-practices-usgs-authorship-scientific-information-products)).
Furthermore, I have had people confirm that I did obtain permission to list people in the acknowledgments of papers.
I also remember reading on an American Statistical Association list server (whose location I do not remember is behind a membership wall for privacy) that a biostatistician/statistician should **NEVER** accept acknowledgements.
As illustrated by your example, acknowledgements give you liability (such as people thinking you approve of their method) without reward (specifically being granted coauthorship).
If the authors refuse to remove you, contact the editor to the journal and ask to be removed.
Hopefully that will work and a correct version of the manuscript will be published.
If that does not works, here are some options:
* Depending upon the amount of effort you want to put into your work, write a response article criticizing the paper.
* Raise ethic concerns with journal, your employer, and ethical employer.
* Do a formal ethics complaint with their professional society if they hold membership.
* Complaint to the funding agency (such as NIH in the US).
Lastly, if you do not want to do that much work and stop after contacting the journal, you might just blacklist the people and refuse to help them ever again.
Sadly, you learned through the "school of hard knocks" why acknowledgements give you liability without reward for statistics.
**Edits based upon comments:**
1. In the Policy, "Individuals listed in the acknowledgements section should be notified before the scientific information product is released or published." implies the person also gives their consent to be listed. I do not have a formal citation for this policy, but have been told this interpretation by people who enforce the policy.
2. Statistical consultation for *ad hoc* analysis or questions about methods by itself would only be acknowledgements, but in the survey statisticians are usually involved with the study design, interpretation of results, and writing the paper.
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/06/16
| 943
| 4,176
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a biology bachelors degree and have been working in a lab for over a year now. My PI is moving universities and recently asked me to join her new lab as a computer science student (I’m interested in bioinformatics but that university doesn’t have that). I have one non-first author papers where I did data analysis work. I am also doing a data science certificate, though it will be from the university she’s coming from and half way completed by the time I apply. I’ve taken python and have research experience using R.
Is it worth applying?<issue_comment>username_1: The purpose of the acknowledgements is to acknowledge help and support from other people and funders. In this case the authors' did exactly that and correctly acknowledged your support. **The fact that you are mentioned in the acknowledgements does not imply that you endorse the paper** and therefore there is generally no need (and no policy) of journals to check whether the people acknowledged in the paper endorse the paper.
However, moving forward you might want to make your statistical support contingent on you signing off on the final manuscript even when you are not an author. That way you can control whether your name appears as part of the paper or not, and whether the language in the acknowledgments accurately represents your contribution. While in theory acknowledgements do not equal endorsement, I agree that there is (very small) implied endorsement by simply being associated with it. For example, I would not like my name appear in a fundamentally unethical study that's going to make the world wide news.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I disagree with the other [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/197242/33210).
To your question: *Is it legitimate to demand to be removed from the acknowledgement?*
You *should* object to being acknowledged without your permission.
For example, my agency has a federal policy against listing people in the acknowledgments without their consent (listed [here](https://www.usgs.gov/survey-manual/50210-fundamental-science-practices-usgs-authorship-scientific-information-products)).
Furthermore, I have had people confirm that I did obtain permission to list people in the acknowledgments of papers.
I also remember reading on an American Statistical Association list server (whose location I do not remember is behind a membership wall for privacy) that a biostatistician/statistician should **NEVER** accept acknowledgements.
As illustrated by your example, acknowledgements give you liability (such as people thinking you approve of their method) without reward (specifically being granted coauthorship).
If the authors refuse to remove you, contact the editor to the journal and ask to be removed.
Hopefully that will work and a correct version of the manuscript will be published.
If that does not works, here are some options:
* Depending upon the amount of effort you want to put into your work, write a response article criticizing the paper.
* Raise ethic concerns with journal, your employer, and ethical employer.
* Do a formal ethics complaint with their professional society if they hold membership.
* Complaint to the funding agency (such as NIH in the US).
Lastly, if you do not want to do that much work and stop after contacting the journal, you might just blacklist the people and refuse to help them ever again.
Sadly, you learned through the "school of hard knocks" why acknowledgements give you liability without reward for statistics.
**Edits based upon comments:**
1. In the Policy, "Individuals listed in the acknowledgements section should be notified before the scientific information product is released or published." implies the person also gives their consent to be listed. I do not have a formal citation for this policy, but have been told this interpretation by people who enforce the policy.
2. Statistical consultation for *ad hoc* analysis or questions about methods by itself would only be acknowledgements, but in the survey statisticians are usually involved with the study design, interpretation of results, and writing the paper.
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/06/16
| 1,313
| 5,689
|
<issue_start>username_0: For some context, I have a Bachelors in Biology, and the pandemic forced me to pursue an online graduate program in another field, but I've wanted to get back into bio research for some time and gain some more experience. I've recently started working at a university microbiology research lab with a government grant. I've been working about a month, learning the protocols and shadowing the other associate present. Lately I've been struggling to get a satisfying yield out of purifying a plasmid from some E.coli cultures. I've communicated this throughout the process to both the other associate and the PI asking for potential ways to correct this, but recently, the PI brought up in conversation mentioning my other degree, as if to imply I wasn't qualified. He knew my background before hiring me and the way he phrased it made it seem like he was reconsidering that decision. I think this might foreshadow an upcoming termination if I fail to deliver results by the end of next week, and I want to ask how likely is that assessment.
I've done this protocol before with this lab with other plasmids, and I've managed to harvest a sufficient yield with those ones. I'm following the protocol as instructed and I've brought it up with both the other associate and the PI the difficulties I've been running into and asked what could be going on. The last we spoke, the PI has implied that I might be insufficiently trained or wasn't a good fit for benchwork, and to be honest I'm afraid that means I'm likely to be terminated soon. If that's the case, what can I expect from future job prospects, as I'm under the impression that it's somewhat of a career death sentence to have such an early termination in one's background. I really enjoy this job, I struggled to get a good job after receiving my Masters and I'm not entirely sure what to do with myself if I lose this one. The pandemic derailed my chances to do hands on research pre-baccaleaureate or as a grad-student, and I don't have think I have enough money, time, or references to try for another degree.<issue_comment>username_1: Neither you nor me know what exactly is happening.
Is the lack of good results your fault or is it part of the set-up? With other words, would someone else have gotten better results?
In a lab that is reasonably run, it is clear that newly hired lab assistants (?) without extensive experience need some time to get up to speed. This seems to have happened. You seemed to have done the correct thing by asking for help. Your PI probably experiences some frustration and made this frustration visible to you. This is also normal, just as helping someone when one has a lot
of other things to do and then feeling frustrated is also normal.
You probably are over-reacting. Presumably, you were selected for the job because you were the best available within the budget. Presumably, your need for help is frustrating to others. That does not mean that you can be easily be replaced without someone else that can do a better job.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In molecular biology, people talk about having "good lab hands", that is, that it is assumed that some people are just good getting results and other people are always behind and requiring help. Of course, this is all BS, since a plasmid prep is a plasmid prep and the bacteria do not care about your good hands: you either get an usable concentration of plasmids or you don't.
On the molecular biology side: on any multi-step protocol there are multiple points of failure, so you need to run positive controls alongside your regular prep. The easiest way to get a working control is to do the protocol side by side with someone who always gets it right, and I don't mean shadowing the person, but running the protocol side-by-side, you using your own pipettes, tubes, centrifuge, etc. You then keep your own culture to use as a positive control and run that along the bacteria from which you are having trouble isolating the plasmid, and you test the results after each step. You keep systematically testing until you can identify the point of failure. It could be that your pipettes need calibration, that you are setting the centrifuge to RCF vs RPM, that the enzymes they gave you were left on a tube by a window and are now denatured, etc.
Having said that, please note that plasmid preps are some of the most basic protocols in molecular biology, and that it should not take much time for an experienced bench biologist to figure out what's going wrong. The fact that you are not being given that type of assistance is concerning. Perhaps the people with the "good hands" are boycotting your progress. Again, plasmid preps are pretty basic stuff.
About the PI, a lot of these people treat lab techs as points in an assembly line. They just want results and don't want to be bothered with developing the skills of their techs. So, if a tech can't get results quickly, then they fire them and get another one who can do it.
Like others have said, you might be reading too much into this, but having worked in many biology labs, I can tell you that you might also be right in your assessment that they are looking to replace you. So ask for assistance running the positive control. If you are not given the assistance, and your PI fires you for something this small, it means that you don't really want to work there anyway. This definitely will not mean the end of your career as a bench scientist. You just get another job, just like you got this one, and with luck you'll find a lab that has a good support structure and someone takes the time to train you in the basic protocols.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/17
| 652
| 2,587
|
<issue_start>username_0: My research field is pure mathematics. I received a major revision of one of my articles. I sent the revised version, and the editor said he would let us know the decision after referee's recommendation. Since then it has been 2 months, but yet to receive the decision.
* How long does it take to give a decision after revision?
* Should I contact the editor to know about the update, if any?
Thanks<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Should I contact the editor to know about the update ...
>
>
>
You may *gently nudge* the editor via the journal system. However, 60 days isn't too long for a **major revision**. It all depends on the discipline and journal process: though there are other factors.
Before contacting the editor, you might want to consider the following
* [Journal Paper Review (Computer Science) taking so long (*after submitting revised manuscript*)? How to proceed?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/194951/journal-paper-review-computer-science-taking-so-long-how-to-proceed)
* [Should I withdraw my paper because review is taking too long?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/178056/should-i-withdraw-my-paper-because-review-is-taking-too-long)
>
> How long does it take to give a decision after revision?
>
>
>
The timeframe varies from journal to journal and on various factors. Some journals might give median times: [Physical Review editor was given here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/133509/life-cycle-for-physical-review-letters). You might need to check with the journal.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would do nothing at this stage.
When you submit a revision, the editor will send it back out to the original reviewers (assuming they agree). That in itself will take a bit of time - sometimes the editor doesn't have time to do it immediately, and people could take time to agree.
Then, typically I would expect to be allowed at least 2 months (perhaps 3) to check a major revision. And it would probably take this long: when I get asked to do this, I will accept but I will almost always have other reviewing tasks that I accepted earlier and are more pressing. This is different from checking a minor revision, which is often straightforward enough that it can jump the queue without unduly delaying other things.
For context, I have currently been waiting just over two months to hear back about a *minor* revision (in pure math). People can be busy, especially at this time of year. I am just going to carry on waiting for the time being.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/17
| 688
| 3,035
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student around midway to the end of the program and I often find myself doubting about which conferences I should attend.
I find many conferences that have to do in some way with my field of specialization that seem interesting. Most of them are just overlapping with my thesis, which is not clear where it will end, and some talks might even require background which I do not possess (despite understanding the general view of things).
Should I attend as many conferences as I can in the attempt to grasp the big picture and explore what is being studied or should I stick to my research project (and maybe introduce myself to other topics from the basics) and avoid attending conferences in which I am not directly involved?<issue_comment>username_1: This is impossible to answer without knowing your field of study, because there is so much variation among academic conferences.
If your budget is limited, and everything else being equal, you should attend the biggest conferences available. Large conferences give you the best chances of meeting new people with shared interests. They also have more talks, and give you a better selection to match your interests.
This does not mean that you should forego attending small conferences. In my experience, more important than the number of attendees or the degree of subject specialization, is the culture of the conference. Some small conferences have a clubbish feel to them, more like a group of friends seeing each other once a year, with no space for newcomers who are not already connected. Other small conferences are wonderful, inviting, and you get to know everybody without much effort, resulting in long lasting connections. To know which is which, you have to ask around. If you can't find that information easily, attend the big conference.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This will depend on which country you are in, customs in your field or university/institute/lab and your travel budget. In general, though:
There are three different reasons why you would attend a conference:
1. To learn new science (either in the field you are in now or in the field you want to be in later). Here you may even attend without presenting.
2. To present your work and get feedback on it from experts on the topic or field via a poster or a talk.
3. To network/make new contacts (I think best way is still to also do this in conjunction with 2, but it could be without if you pick a small conference and interact with speakers and presenters at their posters and during the coffee breaks etc.)
Talk to your supervisor, though, about what they think is most beneficial to you. And all of this will matter much more if you want to continue in science/academia than if you want to do something else after your PhD.
That being said, I do think that #2 should be part of anyone's PhD training as one of the goals is to develop into an independent thinking scientist who can discuss their findings with others.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/17
| 569
| 2,506
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a report in which I have to define some terminology. If I copy from any source and paste it and mention the source will it be enough or do I also have to mark inverted commas along with the source.<issue_comment>username_1: This is impossible to answer without knowing your field of study, because there is so much variation among academic conferences.
If your budget is limited, and everything else being equal, you should attend the biggest conferences available. Large conferences give you the best chances of meeting new people with shared interests. They also have more talks, and give you a better selection to match your interests.
This does not mean that you should forego attending small conferences. In my experience, more important than the number of attendees or the degree of subject specialization, is the culture of the conference. Some small conferences have a clubbish feel to them, more like a group of friends seeing each other once a year, with no space for newcomers who are not already connected. Other small conferences are wonderful, inviting, and you get to know everybody without much effort, resulting in long lasting connections. To know which is which, you have to ask around. If you can't find that information easily, attend the big conference.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This will depend on which country you are in, customs in your field or university/institute/lab and your travel budget. In general, though:
There are three different reasons why you would attend a conference:
1. To learn new science (either in the field you are in now or in the field you want to be in later). Here you may even attend without presenting.
2. To present your work and get feedback on it from experts on the topic or field via a poster or a talk.
3. To network/make new contacts (I think best way is still to also do this in conjunction with 2, but it could be without if you pick a small conference and interact with speakers and presenters at their posters and during the coffee breaks etc.)
Talk to your supervisor, though, about what they think is most beneficial to you. And all of this will matter much more if you want to continue in science/academia than if you want to do something else after your PhD.
That being said, I do think that #2 should be part of anyone's PhD training as one of the goals is to develop into an independent thinking scientist who can discuss their findings with others.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/18
| 1,136
| 4,923
|
<issue_start>username_0: Approximately a few months ago, I was an intern in a research institute. One of the supervisors in a department became a PI of a project which seems to have huge implications. He needed help in performing simulation analysis and 3D modelling. As I was starting school soon, he persuaded me to work with him on this project, concurrently with my studies, telling me about the huge benefits of the project's impact and that he will include my name in the publication. Having the desire to really make an impact and wanting my name on the publication, I agreed to work on his project and extended my internship for another 4 months
During those few months, I worked tirelessly providing all sorts of simulation analysis, and from what I gather, this supervisor is good to work with. Fast forward, post 4 months, I've long ended my extended internship, and continued with my undergraduate study. 2 weeks ago, I asked him if he will be including me in the publication, he told me that 'it depends on whether the publication content has my contribution'.
Upon receiving that, my heart shattered still thinking that it's simply just a friendly way of saying 'no'. From that train of thought, it spiraled to hating myself onto putting my trust on to these people. I feel used. I feel exploited. I feel cheated.
Am I right to feel this way? Or am I simply overthinking about it.<issue_comment>username_1: There are two conflicting rights here.
First, a paper should only contain those as authors who have contributed materially and substantially to the contents.
Second, you were promised an authorship on a paper to be send to a rather prestigious outlet. You have a right to have this promise fulfilled.
How you get out of this conflict in a constructive manner depends on your situation. If you are not included among the authors, because your contributions were not used, then you are owed compensation. There is always a fudge factor when including authors, as for instance negative results can be quite valuable for the research process, but are usually not included in the final result. But if the PI with good will cannot include you as an author, they "owe" you another publication, maybe with you as the first author, or some other compensation. You can always bring this to the attention of a supervisor like the chair of the department, but don't expect a good outcome if the PI has decided against including you. From their putative perspective, there was a good chance of you getting on a good paper, but by bad luck, it did not work out, so nothing can be done.
Your best chance are: wait what really happens with the authorship. Then, if you are not an author, bring up your volunteer work and the promise of authorship and ask for compensation.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: This is an unfortunate situation. It sounds like you did quite a bit of work under the impression that authorship was a sure thing. Right now, I don't think you can do much, other than see how things shake out. You should, however, be persistent and stay in contact about this. Ask for more details on the paper and get a sense of how things are going. Be clear about your concerns.
>
> "I worked extensively on this project under the impression I would be an author. Is there a way to make sure I am a part of the paper moving forward?"
>
>
>
is better than
>
> "Will I be an author"
>
>
>
Keep in mind that papers can take a *long* time to put together and projects often stall for periods of time.
If time goes on and things do not go your way, you have a couple options. You could discuss with your PI how you feel and express that you would like to get a publication. I would shy away from any insinuation that you are *owed* authorship, but a frank conversation about your goals is good. Keep in mind that this experience can still be valuable. You can always talk about it in a future application even without a publication. And if your work was not published, you could ask to publish separately or present the work as a poster at a conference.
You can reach out to the department head if you really feel that you were taken advantage of (and don't mind burning bridges). This should probably be a last resort.
There is a big caveat here though. In my experience, undergraduate students sometimes vastly overestimate their contribution to a project (and how critical they are to its completion). On top of that, it takes some time and experience to learn to navigate authorship conversations. Your position may not have been as set in stone as you initially thought. None of this would be your fault - it's on your PI to guide you in these things - but its something to be aware of. This is especially important if your PI is acting in good faith (i.e. they were not exploiting you intentionally). If your contributions are not used, then you should not be author.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/18
| 2,792
| 12,400
|
<issue_start>username_0: What are the pros and cons of the practice that some questions of a (written) math exam are exactly from the course? For example, asking about the proof of a theorem proven in a course.
The argument I have heard against such practice is that some students tend to just memorize the material, but on the other hand, some people say that the results covered in a standard course are usually essential theoretical results and even memorizing them has some pedagogical benefits.
**Edit:**
The majority are average students are able to do routine exercises, are more and less attentive. Few students are outside average range (very exceptional students or below average). Just a normal class.<issue_comment>username_1: My sense of your question is that this is entirely normal and common. But the question isn't (shouldn't be) one that emphasizes memorization, but, rather, insight into how such a proof actually works and contributes to the overall theory. That requires thought, of course.
I'll note that some proofs in math are especially useful when they provide not just proof, but insight into the underlying concepts of a field.
I'll also guess that this is most useful for the important theorems, rather than the corollaries and such.
For this approach, I don't see any downside.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Have a look at [Bloom's Taxonomy](https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/). Asking students to understand a proof from class well enough to recreate it is near the bottom of the taxonomy. This is perfectly fine because you definitely need the students to be at that level before they can apply their understanding to new situations. But the questions you need to ask yourself are:
1. how much of my assessments focus on understanding vs on application?
2. what other questions could I ask to test their understanding?
For a proof-based class, the students should be engaging with higher levels of the taxonomy so you don't want the majority of your questions to be "recreate what I did in class." One or two questions should be ok given some thought about the key concepts in the proofs you expect your students to know.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: One big advantage of this sort of question is that it tests what it aims to test extremely well. If a student knows the material they will be able to do the question (even on a bad day) and if they don't they won't (even on a good day).
When you ask about something new, there is inevitably some randomness about which students will spot what they need to do differently. A slightly different question might suit different people, and someone having a bad day could miss the key idea even if they would probably get it under better conditions.
Of course, that is also why you need plenty of questions higher up the taxonomy - you need to measure those skills too, and since they are harder to measure you need to put more effort into doing so.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Well, I don't get what the alternative would be. As a student, I expect the exam material to reflect the notes, readings, and lectures. If the exam doesn't do this, then the notes, readings, and lectures are useless, from my vantage point.
I haven't started teaching yet, but it would be unfair of me to ask students details we've not covered in class or in the material, because everything I'll cover is worth covering under the time constraints.
I should note that the questions I would ask on an exam depend on the audience. If I'm teaching a masters level class on causal inference, I will only ask why, for example, the convex hull constraint is believed to be useful. I won't, for example, teach them about changing the constraints to allow for negative weights, allowing for intercepts, or taking away the adding to one constraint.
Why? Well because I honestly would expect very few masters students to even try to do well on a question like that. If I've only covered the classic method, then that's all they'll need to know about.
And even if it were a PHD course on synthetic controls, I would still at least talk about these different penalties and approaches to constraining the weights. I would demand they have knowledge of the basic setup, and then be able to talk richly about why changing these details might change our results. Why? Well, they're PHD students, and this hypothetical course would only be an elective, so if you're here in the class, I presume you want to know deeply about this method in econometrics.
You've already mentioned that your students are average (which is fine!!!). Why even bother to ask them things you know they won't do well on, if the median student in the class is average? Part of being a teacher is teaching to *your audience*, and putting things in a way they will understand, and testing them in a tough, but FAIR manner.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: #### Variation in familiarity/difficulty is desirable in exams
An ideal examination will have questions that range in their level of difficulty and familiarity, including some questions that are familiar to students and offer an opportunity for "easy marks". Including questions that have already been asked and answered in lectures or tutorials (or which were assigned as homework) meets the function of giving familiar questions with no nasty "twists" that would require higher-order skills. You should also include some questions that are minor variations on things the students have seen before, some questions that are major variations on things the students have seen before, and also some questions that are totally unfamiliar, but still use the same mathematics that is being taught in the course. This variation will help students get used to adapting to solving new problems with varying levels of familiarity.
There are some areas of applied mathematics where it is useful to memorise a set of equations or results, particularly when what is being memorised is the *correspondence* of an equation or result with its name. For example, for students doing work in probability/statistics, it is useful to have memorised the density functions of all or most of the core families of probability distributions (e.g., being able to easily identify the normal distribution, gamma distribution, binomial distribution, etc.). This is useful in the same way that it is useful for medical students to memorise the names of parts of the body to aid in learning the substantive parts of medicine.
Aside from these types of cases, one of the key things you will need to impart to your students is that "memorisation" of results that is not backed by understanding is not a method that can lead to long-terms success in mathematics, even over the period of a single course. It is possible that a student could memorise a proof and regurgitate it, but it is not really feasible to pass an entire mathematics course merely by memorisation and regurgitation (and it is certainly not feasible to have a successful mathematics career this way). Memorisation of an entire proof comes with a significant cost in terms of cognitive load. Memorising the steps of a proof you don't understand requires significantly more cognitive load and likelihood of error than merely remembering the core method and main steps of a proof you understand. Moreover, the lack of understanding means that you can only reproduce the same proof and you can't handle variations on the problem if these arise.
In a learning situation, the student who memorises the proof (in lieu of understanding) learns that there is a significant cost to not understanding something and merely reproducing it by rote and that this is an inefficient method over the long-term. At most, memorisation of a proof can offer a minor short-term benefit. It is useful to impart this reality to students explicitly, but they will also learn it as they go when they attempt to "cram" for exams.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Okay, so I would like to share my experience working with some professors and also in the creation of test papers for university students in Russia. Some questions on math exams are taken directly from the course material, not just math but everything.
Here are the pros:
It solves the problem of a lack of question materials. You cannot keep creating new questions all the time. In fact, professors often create a list of questions based on what was elaborated on during lectures. And, of course, the lecture program was created based on a "course" book. Even if let's say you can create new questions, can you keep doing that for years, because after each years, the current year of students will just made a compilation of known questions and sell it to the next year. New questions become known questions.
It makes it easier for students. Now, you may ask, why does it need to be easier? Simply because many professors know that students don't have time to study all of that. Life in university or college is really busy, and many students work part-time while attending classes. So having repeated questions each year based on lecture materials reduces the time required for studying.
It also reduces the chances of disputes. When you create new questions, different students will answer differently because they will have to answer based on their understanding. University students' wording is not always the best, so in cases where the answers to those questions were not regulated, it's hard to deny the answer of someone without disputes coming from them later on, which costs a lot of time and work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: Often I do exams like this:
* First part, lesson questions
* + Question 1) Recall the definition concept X.
* + Question 2) Recall theorem Y.
* + Question 3) Recall the proof of theorem Y.
* Second part: solve a math problem (divided into several subquestions to guide the steps).
* Third part: another math problem (usually one of the two problems is much shorted than the other)
Not surprisingly, the students who fail questions 1, 2 or 3 also ***completely*** fail both problems, and most students who succeed at questions 1, 2 and 3 mostly succeed at the problems as well, although there can of course be a few mistakes along the way.
So, it looks like these three sets:
* the students who memorised the lessons
* the students who understood the proofs
* the students who are able to apply the concepts to solve a problem
are mostly one set, not three different sets.
The exact score earned in the exam due to the two problems vary a lot between students, due to varying number of mistakes or of how well they handled the time constraint of the exam; but the first part very clearly divides the class between those who have a basic understanding of the lessons and those who don't.
If I had to explain why, I would guess that the concepts are actually easy enough that if you have memorised them, you will not have too much trouble understanding them; but they are complicated enough that there is no hope of understanding them if you haven't even memorised the basic building blocks.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You've received some good answers already, I'll just add an example of what might happen in case you overdo it.
At the uni where I studied there is a lecturer in theoretical physics who was (and maybe still is, I don't know) known among students for basing her exams largely around (minor variations of) exercises that were studied in the exercise groups during the semester, and thus for the exams being easy to pass even when you struggle to understand difficult theoretical material.
And then, of course, more than on average perhaps students that are looking for an easier way to pass the exam attend courses by such a lecturer, for example students that have failed the course before or, interestingly, sometimes even students who take the course one year earlier than scheduled just to get that opportunity (thus not having attained all the knowledge from preceding theoretical physics lectures they might need for the course).
I'm saying nothing about the extent of such an effect and one whether you should put this down as a pro or a con... ;)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: One disadvantage – or at least restriction – is that it doesn't work in an open-book exam.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/18
| 854
| 3,392
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my department, every undergraduate (including me) has to do a Capstone project with a professor in order to graduate.
Students need the professor's consent prior to declaring that the supervisor for the project is that professor.
However, the rules do not indicate whether students can obtain multiple professors' consents and choose one of them as the supervisor (thus declining all others).
I asked fellow students and they all talked with only one professor.
I talked to two professors and they both are happy to be my supervisor
and now I have to choose only one of them.
Declining a professor's "offer" [1] might be an issue to the professor
because I suppose they have to make changes on their schedule
(though the consent must be obtained two months before the project).
Both professors are fairly respectable
and I do not want to be distrusted by them.
What is the proper etiquette when declining one of them?
---
[1]: They did not actually give a formal consent.
They jumped directly into the discussion of interests and schedules,
as if they have already treated me as their supervisee.<issue_comment>username_1: I hate to say it, but professors aren't chomping at the bit to add one-on-one undergraduate supervision to their schedule. It sounds like something that regularly happens in your department - and I'm sure professors often enjoy it and do a good job - but a professor is not going to be distraught if you don't end up working with them.
A simple email suffices (see also [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90725/how-should-i-phrase-an-important-question-that-i-need-to-ask-a-professor)):
>
> Thank you for the discussion yesterday, Professor X. I also spoke with Professor Y and her interests align with my goals for this project more, so I will be doing my capstone with her.
>
>
> Thanks again, and see you around,
>
>
> durianice
>
>
>
As [Rmano](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/51347/rmano) recommended in the comments, inform them as soon as possible so they can manage their own requirements.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Okay, so this is my experience of choosing a professor for my graduate research project.
When you approach a professor and talk to them, they do not consider that you have chosen them as your supervisor. Therefore, you do not need to feel guilty about declining their offers because:
Only in the second meeting or so, you can choose or agree with them on the selected direction of the project. Then, the professors will create a paper or a list confirming that you are their student and send to the department.
Even if you discussed your chosen direction in the first meeting with them, some professors might think that you have already made your choice and later change your mind. However, this is fine because the significance of the project allows you to do so.
And this is what I think on the etiquette:
Whether it is considered proper etiquette or not doesn't depend on the fact that you approached a professor and then declined their offer, but rather on how you did it. In my opinion, etiquette is about looking into a professor's bio, their specialty, and the usual direction of their previous students before approaching them. This way, when you decline their offer, the reason will be specific and professional.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/19
| 784
| 3,167
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to apply to a university in New Zealand where the university language requirement is the thing that I mentioned in the question. There are other language tests, but I took TOEFL iBT. I have 15 research articles, 7 of them published in high-ranked international journals, and have more than 10 years of research experience. The university does not want to secure a supervisor before submitting the documents, and they choose a supervisor for the candidates. I sent an email to the higher education department, but they just sent me a link containing the Ph.D. requirements that I have already studied. Can I submit the documents to compete for a Ph.D. position? My friends said try your chance and if you have good research background they might give you a position. A friend of mine who is an associate professor in Sweden says it is ok, but I do not know what to do.<issue_comment>username_1: I hate to say it, but professors aren't chomping at the bit to add one-on-one undergraduate supervision to their schedule. It sounds like something that regularly happens in your department - and I'm sure professors often enjoy it and do a good job - but a professor is not going to be distraught if you don't end up working with them.
A simple email suffices (see also [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90725/how-should-i-phrase-an-important-question-that-i-need-to-ask-a-professor)):
>
> Thank you for the discussion yesterday, Professor X. I also spoke with Professor Y and her interests align with my goals for this project more, so I will be doing my capstone with her.
>
>
> Thanks again, and see you around,
>
>
> durianice
>
>
>
As [Rmano](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/51347/rmano) recommended in the comments, inform them as soon as possible so they can manage their own requirements.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Okay, so this is my experience of choosing a professor for my graduate research project.
When you approach a professor and talk to them, they do not consider that you have chosen them as your supervisor. Therefore, you do not need to feel guilty about declining their offers because:
Only in the second meeting or so, you can choose or agree with them on the selected direction of the project. Then, the professors will create a paper or a list confirming that you are their student and send to the department.
Even if you discussed your chosen direction in the first meeting with them, some professors might think that you have already made your choice and later change your mind. However, this is fine because the significance of the project allows you to do so.
And this is what I think on the etiquette:
Whether it is considered proper etiquette or not doesn't depend on the fact that you approached a professor and then declined their offer, but rather on how you did it. In my opinion, etiquette is about looking into a professor's bio, their specialty, and the usual direction of their previous students before approaching them. This way, when you decline their offer, the reason will be specific and professional.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/19
| 2,457
| 10,409
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a med school student who is writing her master's thesis. I finished compiling my thesis with all the statistical analyses and wrote them as well. My problem is that today, when talking to the professor who is my advisor, he thought that the statistical part was wrong and asked me to "correct" it in a way that I am sure it is absolutely wrong. Now he wants me to write things his way, even though the deadline is tomorrow. I tried to calmly explain the theory behind it, but I quickly realized that being a doctor, he understands virtually no math or statistics.
My problem is that aside from the tight deadline, I don't want my name to appear on an analysis that is that wrong. I don't even know what I would do during the dissertation since I know for sure that those things are wrong, and I wouldn't be able to defend my thesis. What would you do in my shoes? Should I just write the bulls\*\*t and be over with it? I'm exhausted from all the work I have done, and can't find the force or motivation to work on something I know has 0 value.
About the analysis, if you think I might be the one wrong:
* It's a retrospective study where I pooled around 80 patients. Each of them had done an examination 2 times within a certain time period, but with two different machines (once with machine A, once with machine B). We wanted to see if machine B was better when considering around 20 parameters that describe radiation dose and image quality in various ways. So the goal was to see if the same patient had more favourable parameter values when using machine B, when compared to machine A. The professor was very clear in saying that he didn't want to see the overall difference between the two machines: he wants to see how much the average patient benefits when switching from machine A to machine B.
* what I did: since we wanted to see the difference within the same patient, I first computed the difference of each parameter when using machine A and machine B, for each patient (so I had all the differences for the 20 parameters). Since patient number was limited, I first assessed if each difference was normally distributed across the patients (using a test called saphiro-wilk). When it was normal, I used the a paired t-test. For parameters that were not normally distributed, I used the Wilcoxon's ranked sign test.
Additionally, for all significant results I computed the Cohen's d to quantify the effect size.
* what he wants me to do: compute the mean and standard deviation of each parameter as it is (parameter 1 in machine A, and parameter 1 in machine B). Then run a normal t-test. According to him, the tests that I used are too complicated, no one ever heard of them and no one would understand them, and anyway they make no sense. According to him, a normal t-test preserves the notion that it was the same patient who repeated the test twice. Also, he changed his mind and out of all the 20 parameters he made me look during the study, he suggested that we delete some, and for some others, I should add them together or take the mean (which makes absolutely no sense?!?!?!)
* I'm no statistician, I'm just a regular med student that is passionate about science and math. I spent the last month reading books I wasn't familiar with, and writing code on python to implement my analysis. So of course I might be wrong. But the professor's version doesn't sound right to me. Moreover, I feel desperate because I put so much work in it. I just don't feel like going back to coding to implement his wrong ideas (I know it's a simple iteration and I know I can use scipy.stats and that it wouldn't be so long. But I just can't take it anymore)
Sorry for the rant. If you can share your mind I will be grateful. For now, I'm just crying my eyes out on my bed, out of frustration, but maybe I'm not being objective, since I'm running on almost no sleep.
**Edit**: I finished everything in time and the result is somewhat decent! There still are some parts that refer to the older analysis, but I included it in the appendix (as some of you suggested) and mentioned it, so it should be fine. I can't thank you enough for your kind and constructive support! Having the chance to talk it out and hear some feedback really helped in getting started again.
The tight timeline is not so unusual at my university - at least for my department. But this one was definitely extreme. I addressed the issue this morning when talking to the advisor, hopefully he will take my feedback into account when dealing with future students.<issue_comment>username_1: I’m not in a position to comment on the specifics of the problem, so will answer the abstract question: what to do if my advisor tells me to do something that I know is incorrect, as a condition for my graduation?
This is tough. I’d say that if you have time, get the opinion of additional experts on the topic (statistics) who may explain why your method makes sense. You should graduate on time, so I do suggest changing things in accordance to what your advisor said, and then follow it up with advice from a domain expert who will hopefully clarify.
As an aside, the more serious issue is that your advisor only saw your results a day before they were due. Research and mentoring are all about good and regular communication, which is where things broke down in my opinion.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You seem to be omitting quite a lot of what is/was going on, but let's ignore that for now and focus on the question. Tests have the main purpose of showing that something is correct/incorrect (and by how much). You are writing your thesis for doctors - this is the department that will award your degree. Many/most will understand a simple t-test, but fewer have even heard of some of the fancier stuff you describe - let alone understand it.
Putting all of those arguments in support of machine B, while lacking basic ones, is therefore NOT convincing. Such people will read the thesis, see fancy analysis and conclude that if you need all of this fancy analysis to show some benefits, there is actually no benefit to be had in practice and all of this is just smoke and mirrors.
Is it still valuable to have these better tests? Of course, so I believe that you should start the "Analysis" section or whatever it is named with the basic test. IF it shows improvements then great but if not then too bad.
In any case you should continue with results of fancier statistical analysis in the same section. Results of those methods should be in the main part of the thesis, while code could be in appendix; perhaps detailed description/derivation too.
Now, about grouping of those indicators, you can always have a single "goodness" indicator - which would likely be "health" in your case. It is an aggregate of all other indicators you can think of and there can be millions. Obtaining that single number is prone to fudging even if unintentionally. On the other hand, measuring all the separate indicators often leads to stuff like "we get 1% reduction in number of floaters at the cost of 1% higher neck muscle pain" (caricature of the idealized case. Too often only improvements are given). Besides, it is easy to fall in the trap of thinking you got some improvement, only for it to happen by chance (think <https://xkcd.com/882/>).
I believe you should trust advisor here as he likely knows which indicators matter. Obviously you should NOT simply sweep discarded parameters under the rug, you should mention all the parameters you measured during study, together with what you combined or discarded and most importantly - why. Even if others do not agree with your decisions, at least they will know the potential issues and limitations of your study.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Academia is a system which rewards popularity (citations) over truth. It's a system which hasn't fundamentally changed even though it's known that most published findings are false (Ioannidis, [2005](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)). Instead, most of science is still occupied with providing intricate theories from within ivory towers which do not need to work in the real-world at all. The only requirement is that the peers in the field like what you are saying, so you can just echo some important-sounding words around and get many citations. For example, "psychology’s near-total focus on explaining the causes of behavior has led much of the field to be populated by research programs that provide intricate theories of psychological mechanism but that have little (or unknown) ability to predict future behaviors with any appreciable accuracy." (Yarkoni & Westfall, [2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393)). Similarly, software effort estimation research is mostly based on a few tiny datasets from the 1980-1990s, which are then analyses and re-analysed with trendy data science techniques even though the data itself doesn't reflect the changes in software development since then (Jones, [2021](https://shape-of-code.com/2021/01/17/software-effort-estimation-is-mostly-fake-research/)).
As someone who is also close to finishing my PhD, you can be sure that I and many other academics will respect your decision in both cases. Yes, I would prefer that you choose the "right" way. However, I fully respect the fact that you have almost no say in the matter. I wouldn't blame you if you decide to follow your supervisor's orders. I wouldn't even blame your supervisor since he probably has many responsibilities and he probably tries to do the best he can within the constraints that he works with.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: I have to agree his arguments you've listed don't convince me either. Also, it appears you chose the tools mindfully and, if asked, can explain the decision. In a pinch, that should suffice.
I understand it has already been 24 hours since the question was asked and the deadline has come. You have made your honest best effort and followed scientific integrity. Whatever follows, you will learn from this experience and become a better academic, medic, scientist for it. This one paper, one day of revisions doesn't define you as an academic. As many joke, your thesis hopefully will be your worst paper (because there are many more better and better papers to be produced by you).
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/19
| 283
| 1,284
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I make a conference poster as a graduate student, whose email address(es) should be included in the subtitle of the poster? Traditionally, I have always thought it should just be the PI's email, since they're the corresponding author, but I've seen a few posters where either the graduate student's email is either the only one listed or both the student and PIs' emails are listed (both the student and PI are listed as authors in both cases). As this is my first time preparing a professional research poster, I am wondering what the generally accepted etiquette for this is.<issue_comment>username_1: I think it depends on standards within the field. In math or theoretical subfields, often all authors are considered equal and are corresponding authors (unless they don't want to be).
Personally though, so long as no one else in your group has a problem with it, I would include your email as well since it can be helpful for your professional development. I've definitely reached out to people who presented posters before via email.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you want that people can contact you (and you should: you are the author of the poster, after all!), you will need to include your email address!
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/19
| 372
| 1,655
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was hired by an American state teaching college last year as a tenure-track assistant professor of humanities. The college did not offer me any fixed startup funding. Instead, I had to submit my research proposal to the college and line up with all other faculty members in the college to compete for the funding for attending conferences or doing research. In most of the cases, even if I got the funding, I had to pay out-of-pocket more or less for my research trip. This made me feel very insecure. I am wondering whether it is possible for me to negotiate some startup funding a year after I accepted the offer. Or whether there would be any chances to negotiate startup or research fundings?<issue_comment>username_1: It is very unlikely that you could negotiate this type of funding after you are employed, particularly at the type of institution where you are working. I would put your energy into building collaborations that are fundable and applying for external grants.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You can of course always ask. The question is whether they will give you anything. Among the considerations for your department head or dean will be "Did other new hires get anything?", and "Do we offer anything of this sort to people who have been in the department for longer already?"
If none of the recent hires got a startup package, and if people generally pay for their conference participation out of their own pocket, then you're unlikely to get anything. Whether that is the case, of course, is something you can find out before you ask for it: Talk to your colleagues!
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/19
| 276
| 1,229
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently Graduated. My major was Civil Engineering. I want to apply for an Applied math Ph.D. My undergraduate thesis was on continuum mechanics that use heavy tensor machinery. Would any applied math Ph.D. program in the US take students from an Engineering background?<issue_comment>username_1: It is very unlikely that you could negotiate this type of funding after you are employed, particularly at the type of institution where you are working. I would put your energy into building collaborations that are fundable and applying for external grants.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You can of course always ask. The question is whether they will give you anything. Among the considerations for your department head or dean will be "Did other new hires get anything?", and "Do we offer anything of this sort to people who have been in the department for longer already?"
If none of the recent hires got a startup package, and if people generally pay for their conference participation out of their own pocket, then you're unlikely to get anything. Whether that is the case, of course, is something you can find out before you ask for it: Talk to your colleagues!
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/19
| 1,699
| 6,965
|
<issue_start>username_0: Because I have autism I am forced to go it alone for writing a computer science research paper outside of conventional US university auspices toward a doctorate by publication through an accredited UK or European university that will offer it.
As such, I know I must do an unassisted literature search.
Is there some agreed-upon standard between computer science departments as to how extensive the search must be to meet professional research standards?
My problem will be affording library access and download fees, which could be a problem as my resources are scant.
Do I therefore include?
1. USPTO
2. Freely published papers.
3. Books available in Gutenberg.
4. Hobbyist websites.
5. Anything else freely available.
Am I to include, regardless of the cost or my paper becomes unacceptable?
1. University reserve libraries for textbooks and proceeding, which may bar the general public.
2. Relevant topic journals such as ACM or IEEE which are only accessible online for a fee.
3. Elsvier and Wesley collections having a huge price to access online.
4. Textbooks through Amazon.
Anything else I haven't thought of?<issue_comment>username_1: It's difficult providing answer, however there are approaches you can take towards conducting lit review (within or outside formal university env)
---
When conducting lit review, you need to consider couple of things beforehand.
* purpose of the review
* objective of the review which indicates expected outcome
* type of review: systematic, narrative, scoping, rapid review
* Search strategy
* venue: ***just as you've listed, where you'll source your articles***. Try to leverage community library. Also, if there is a uni around, don't be scare of walking in to request assistance: you might get help.
* search criteria informed by purpose and objective
* exclusion criteria
* results synthesis
That's a broad approach that's applicable across board.
For CS and IS, you can for instance look at [Okoli, 2015](http://chitu.okoli.org/pub/okoli-2015-a-guide-to-conducting-a-standalone-systematic-literature-review/). There are lots of options.
You can look at [PRISMA-ScR](http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews) (Tricco et al., 2018), if you want to combine the '*rigour*' of systematic with the '*flexibility*' of scoping.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This isn't so much an answer to the concrete question you are asking, as an answer to what I feel is lurking behind it:
At the end of the day, you get a PhD because some committee of people at a university approves your thesis. In other words, the only place where you can get a definitive answer to this or any similar question you have is to ask the members of that committee for their opinion on it. Who those are we cannot know (because you only vaguely describe the university you hope will give you your degree, but in practice, every reputable institution will require you to do a literature review that is comparable to those that are commonly found in theses from that institution -- so start there with looking for examples.
I will add, though, that I would be surprised if you got a reprieve because you lack the funds to access specific literature: PhDs are awarded for original research work (which includes being familiar with the literature) and people will not generally lower their standards to account for a student's financial means. This is one of the (many) reasons why universities do not confer degrees for theses by people not affiliated with the university.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: On the matter of cost: nobody is expected to pay those fees to download papers off publisher websites!
You can
1 get access to a university connection and download them for free
2 ask the authors for a copy (they'll be happy to send it)
3 ask acquaintances in Academia to download them for you
You can also pray to saint Alexandra of the hub (I probably can't go into details here but you can imagine)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Because I have autism I am forced to go it alone for writing a
> computer science research paper outside of conventional US university
> auspices toward a doctorate by publication through an accredited UK or
> European university that will offer it.
>
>
>
This is an assumption you've made, and one I'd strongly say is false, off the top of my head I can think of several people with autism in the scientific community that I know, at least a couple of them full professors (and there are probably other's that I know who I'm not thinking of).
>
> As such, I know I must do an unassisted literature search.
>
>
> Is there some agreed-upon standard between computer science
> departments as to how extensive the search must be to meet
> professional research standards?
>
>
>
These standards are exactly why people will say you should do a PhD if you want to get into academic research (industry research/R&D is different to academic research). The other reason is that more people who are part of that field means more people you can bounce ideas off or who know key parts of the literature that are relevant to whatever you are working on.
>
> Because of autism I am poor at taking tests and at oral exams. I can't
> pass conventional qualifying exams.
>
>
>
If this is the reason you believe you should go it alone and avoid more traditional PhD training, you should change the framing of your question from, "how do I do research alone?" to "which universities can accommodate for my disabilities and how?" Keep in mind a key word you used was conventional. If there is an unconventional way to prove achievement equivalent to what they are testing for that works for you then that solves this problem.
A strong support community, like the kind that develops in a PhD program, is important for producing good results and good papers. If part of the reason you are wanting to "go it alone" so to say is because of social phobias or a preference away from social interaction, keep in mind these people will be the kind who will want to talk to you and go into detail about research while chatting over lunch. Worst case in that scenario, someone might say half jokingly, no work over lunch and half the people will switch to something more conventional while the other half will continue talking about science and just make sure they aren't forcing the dissenting voice to join them.
As a last note, and to confirm your goals, is your goal to get into research and a PhD is a step on this path. Or is it to prove you are skilled/intelligent/smart enough to do research without anyone's help for one reason or another. Despite the fact that basically no one does this, including those who say they did or who everyone else says they did. A PhD is a challenge and involves displaying all of these things even if you get plenty of help and accommodations in order to achieve it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/19
| 2,214
| 9,102
|
<issue_start>username_0: Before I get into it, I'd like to say that I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts or advice, especially if you have any experience with EE or CS graduate admissions.
I have just completed my third year as an undergraduate electrical engineering student at a top 20 engineering school, and I am interested in applying to a Masters in CS or EE. Starting in the last year of high school, I went through an intense mental health struggle related to a medical condition; psychologists warned me when I was a kid that this might happen at some point and would take years for me to overcome. My parents and I have kept the medical condition and my lifelong experience with it secret from the rest of the family. I intend to keep it private from admissions officers too. The situation was worsened by my parents' "ineffective" and "damaging" (in my psychologist's words) way of dealing with my mental health struggle while applying high academic pressure on me.
My major-field GPA could have been considerably higher if I hadn't gone through the major struggle to find meaning in life. It became hard for me to care as much about outperforming my peers as I used to, and I focused more on my mental and physical health. I earned a C in my first year during the semester when my parents threatened to disown me after discovering that I'd secretly reached out to a mental health professional (they don't trust them). I think I might've earned an F in an EE class this past semester. I am convinced that if I hadn't gone through this process, the risk of self-harm or potentially even suicide would be high later on in life. So the good news is: I'm not worried about that any more. The bad news is: I had perfect academics until the end of high school, and now I feel like I've undone all my past hard work. My parents refuse to let me graduate one semester late so all four years of grades can be considered.
My current summer internship is for software engineering at a startup, and I have been in a computer science research lab since January (although I didn't do much this past semester because I was too busy). I am resuming my research work this week, but I'm not sure if I've done enough to ask my professor for a reference letter. I also have great recommendation letters from computer science professors given that I've done considerably better in CS than in EE. Grades put aside, I want to work a job involving both EE and CS (so probably firmware/embedded software). So an MS in CS would probably be best, all things considered, but CS MS is usually harder to get into than MSEE. If I apply at the end of fall semester this year, that means I have just one semester to really turn this ship around. I will also apply for full-time jobs at the same time, but I don't know how that will go.
Does anyone have advice on what I can say to graduate school admissions officers to explain the low grades? Do I have much of a chance at top 20 MS CS programs? Along the same vein, are there any suggestions for what I can do to maximize my chances of admission? There's a summer online CS course (not crucial to CS jobs though) that I dropped to devote more time to my remote internship, but I'm considering enrolling just to strengthen my CS background and boost my GPA.<issue_comment>username_1: It's difficult providing answer, however there are approaches you can take towards conducting lit review (within or outside formal university env)
---
When conducting lit review, you need to consider couple of things beforehand.
* purpose of the review
* objective of the review which indicates expected outcome
* type of review: systematic, narrative, scoping, rapid review
* Search strategy
* venue: ***just as you've listed, where you'll source your articles***. Try to leverage community library. Also, if there is a uni around, don't be scare of walking in to request assistance: you might get help.
* search criteria informed by purpose and objective
* exclusion criteria
* results synthesis
That's a broad approach that's applicable across board.
For CS and IS, you can for instance look at [Okoli, 2015](http://chitu.okoli.org/pub/okoli-2015-a-guide-to-conducting-a-standalone-systematic-literature-review/). There are lots of options.
You can look at [PRISMA-ScR](http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews) (Tricco et al., 2018), if you want to combine the '*rigour*' of systematic with the '*flexibility*' of scoping.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This isn't so much an answer to the concrete question you are asking, as an answer to what I feel is lurking behind it:
At the end of the day, you get a PhD because some committee of people at a university approves your thesis. In other words, the only place where you can get a definitive answer to this or any similar question you have is to ask the members of that committee for their opinion on it. Who those are we cannot know (because you only vaguely describe the university you hope will give you your degree, but in practice, every reputable institution will require you to do a literature review that is comparable to those that are commonly found in theses from that institution -- so start there with looking for examples.
I will add, though, that I would be surprised if you got a reprieve because you lack the funds to access specific literature: PhDs are awarded for original research work (which includes being familiar with the literature) and people will not generally lower their standards to account for a student's financial means. This is one of the (many) reasons why universities do not confer degrees for theses by people not affiliated with the university.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: On the matter of cost: nobody is expected to pay those fees to download papers off publisher websites!
You can
1 get access to a university connection and download them for free
2 ask the authors for a copy (they'll be happy to send it)
3 ask acquaintances in Academia to download them for you
You can also pray to saint Alexandra of the hub (I probably can't go into details here but you can imagine)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Because I have autism I am forced to go it alone for writing a
> computer science research paper outside of conventional US university
> auspices toward a doctorate by publication through an accredited UK or
> European university that will offer it.
>
>
>
This is an assumption you've made, and one I'd strongly say is false, off the top of my head I can think of several people with autism in the scientific community that I know, at least a couple of them full professors (and there are probably other's that I know who I'm not thinking of).
>
> As such, I know I must do an unassisted literature search.
>
>
> Is there some agreed-upon standard between computer science
> departments as to how extensive the search must be to meet
> professional research standards?
>
>
>
These standards are exactly why people will say you should do a PhD if you want to get into academic research (industry research/R&D is different to academic research). The other reason is that more people who are part of that field means more people you can bounce ideas off or who know key parts of the literature that are relevant to whatever you are working on.
>
> Because of autism I am poor at taking tests and at oral exams. I can't
> pass conventional qualifying exams.
>
>
>
If this is the reason you believe you should go it alone and avoid more traditional PhD training, you should change the framing of your question from, "how do I do research alone?" to "which universities can accommodate for my disabilities and how?" Keep in mind a key word you used was conventional. If there is an unconventional way to prove achievement equivalent to what they are testing for that works for you then that solves this problem.
A strong support community, like the kind that develops in a PhD program, is important for producing good results and good papers. If part of the reason you are wanting to "go it alone" so to say is because of social phobias or a preference away from social interaction, keep in mind these people will be the kind who will want to talk to you and go into detail about research while chatting over lunch. Worst case in that scenario, someone might say half jokingly, no work over lunch and half the people will switch to something more conventional while the other half will continue talking about science and just make sure they aren't forcing the dissenting voice to join them.
As a last note, and to confirm your goals, is your goal to get into research and a PhD is a step on this path. Or is it to prove you are skilled/intelligent/smart enough to do research without anyone's help for one reason or another. Despite the fact that basically no one does this, including those who say they did or who everyone else says they did. A PhD is a challenge and involves displaying all of these things even if you get plenty of help and accommodations in order to achieve it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/20
| 3,096
| 12,609
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am from a country where humor is a part of the culture, and I recently prepared the following referee report:
>
> The manuscript solves an interesting problem, but, unfortunately, the
> authors are a bit late with their study. The very same problem and the
> same results were described just half a century ago by XXX, Journal of
> XXX (1969). Like the manuscript under review, that paper ...
>
>
> It was a very important problem at the time, but the research field of
> XXX has somewhat evolved since then, so I'd like to take this
> opportunity to encourage the authors to catch up with the recent
> progress and do something on the cutting edge of research.
>
>
>
The idea was to use a humorously gentle style to jokingly portray the authors as stuck in the old era, especially given that they are now professors in their 60s or 70s. "Just" half a century is a huge time period, and the research field has evolved beyond what people could even imagine back then.
To clarify, the problem solved in the manuscript isn't something everyone in this research field knows about. I myself didn't know about that problem when I received the manuscript for review. However, I checked the literature and found that paper in about 20 minutes. The paper is highly cited and was helpful in solving various problems when the fundamentals of the research field were laid. It looks like the professors made an attempt to do something fundamental and failed to properly check the literature first.
Considering the authors and the editor are not from my country and might find such a style inappropriate or even offending, I rewrote the report in a rather boring manner with a bit of empathy:
>
> The manuscript solves an interesting problem, but, unfortunately, this
> problem has already been solved in the literature.
>
>
> On the bright side, I can confirm that the authors' solution and
> conclusions are correct. I would be happy to recommend this manuscript
> for publication if the problem had not already been solved.
>
>
>
I sent the latter version and now feel that I may have played it too safe. My original report could have made a day for the editor and convincingly taught the professors an important lesson. I feel very tempted to use my original style in similar circumstances in the future.
My question is addressed to people who have worked on editorial boards. Are reports like my original version acceptable? What are the policies and practices regarding this? As an editor, what would you do upon receiving such a referee report?
---
P.S. I don't want to specify my country, because I don't want to start a discussion about its culture and people. My question is about humor in referee reports.
Please don't be too hard on me if my original version is highly inappropriate. After all, I didn't send it. I'm asking this question to ensure I won't do anything wrong in the future.<issue_comment>username_1: You were right to change it. The worst thing that could happen is that the authors feel like you are trying to make a dig at their ability. The best thing is that.. someone might find the comment slightly amusing.
I am also from a country where humour is 'part of the culture', but I find the comment slightly patronising and rude, and not particularly funny either. People underestimate the degree to which humour gets lost over formats like email compared to spoken word. This is particularly the case when interacting with people from other countries and cultures.
Play it safe and be nice to people.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: The reviewer of a paper is in a *privileged position*. It's their prerogative to advise the editor whether the author of the paper should have a good day or a crappy day, and while their power isn't absolute the relationship between reviewer and author is *decidedly* unequal.
So when attempting humor, consider the likelihood that your jokes will be interpreted as 'punching down', as having cruel fun by denigrating someone who can't fight back. In that light, your original version does come off as unkind. (Well, it comes off as confusing and poorly phrased. But if you look past that, it comes off as unkind.)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Humour is totally fine.
However, there is a mismatch between the question title and the example provided, which is irony and it sounds both rude and condescending.
irony : humour = laughing at someone : laughing with someone
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> The idea was to use a humorously gentle style to jokingly portray the authors as stuck in the old era, especially given that they are now professors in their 60s or 70s
>
>
>
Humor is fine. The problem is not that you are using humor. The problem is that there is **no way to tell from the written text that it was meant to be interpreted as "humorously gentle style"**.
You are making the common mistake of imagining that the reader is going to read what you wrote in the same mental voice that you used when you were writing it. This is not at all the case. In an in-person interaction, you can rely on non-verbal cues to convey the information that you do not mean to disparage the authors. But this information is completely lost in written text. You are severely overestimating your ability to do convey your mental voice in written text if you assume that reasonable readers will interpret your text as "humorously gentle style".
Consider the following thought experiment. Suppose that, unlike you, I am a mean-spirited referee who thinks that the authors are idiots and who wants to skewer them mercilessly in my report. Suppose that to this end, I write the following in the report, hinting at the fact the authors are idiots for doing something that has been done half a century ago:
>
> The manuscript solves an interesting problem, but, unfortunately, the authors are a bit late with their study. The very same problem and the same results were described just half a century ago by XXX, Journal of XXX (1969). Like the manuscript under review, that paper ...
>
>
> It was a very important problem at the time, but the research field of XXX has somewhat evolved since then, so I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage the authors to catch up with the recent progress and do something on the cutting edge of research.
>
>
>
Now ask yourself: how exactly is the recipient of the report supposed to distinguish between your "humorously gentle style" and my "sarcastic and biting style"?
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Humor is great! But there is a time and a place for it, and your use falls outside of the range of situations in which it is appropriate.
By way of illustration, the following are situations where the use of humor is inadvisable:
* When informing an author that you are recommending their paper be rejected
* When firing an employee
* When breaking up with a romantic partner
* When you are a doctor telling a patient that they have a life threatening illness, or need major surgery, or similarly grave news
The common denominator in these situations is that you are about to deliver news to someone that can come as a major blow to their ego, self-esteem, livelihood, prospects for professional success, prospects for happiness, etc. You need to expect that, regardless of their culture and how humor-loving it is, upon hearing this kind of news the person is *not* going to be in the mood for joking around! For that reason, making light of the bad news you are communicating to them is tone-deaf and highly unempathetic; it will almost certainly make them even more upset than they would be if the news were delivered in a dry, humorless way.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: I don't think you're supposed to talk about this on a public forum. So don't put it in the report, otherwise they could find the sentence here…
Anyway I don't think it was a good idea. No need to hurt the author, who may simply not have been able to explain what's new in his work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: The issue here is not humour, but context - or lack thereof, because text-based communication generally cannot convey context due to its very nature. On the internet emoticons like ;) are used to provide that context, but the very nature of academia precludes the use of such context clues.
There is another way to convey context via text, and that's if you have an existing relationship with the person(s) you're communicating with. In that case context will be implicit to that relationship, which can assist the others in interpreting your intended tone - but is still not a guarantee that they'll get it right.
Given the above, the readers of your report are going to be coming in effectively context-blind when they read your comment, which means they're likely going to take it at face value. And at face value, your "humourous" comment... isn't; my (completely unreasonably cynical) interpretation of it would be "you idiots failed to do basic research, with the result that you completely wasted my time on reviewing a paper that doesn't need to exist".
There's a time and place for (attempts at) humour, but refereeing is not it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: My personal approach would be to avoid humor in a referee role.
A publication record can be critically important in academic situations. In some situations it can make the difference between getting a grant and not getting a grant, or keeping a job or entering the job market. People in such situations may not appreciate efforts at humor. Even if you're offering a completely positive review, other reviewers may put publication in jeopardy, leaving an author nonreceptive to the humor a referee may offer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Very interesting perspective, thanks for sharing this!
I am not an editor, but author and reviewer. With my personal cultural background and in my discipline, I would not have had understood that your remarks were meant humorous.
As an author to get the original reply, I would feel that you are talking down on me.
As a reviewer, I would (in my discipline) always stick to a very formal, positive, and precise tone. In your case, I understand, that it is not easy to tell some people, that are in the field for many years, that they did a beginner's mistake: bad literature research. However, the way you solved it seems good to me.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_10: A nice example of humour (IMHO) which actually didn't make it into the referee's text is due to [Paul Halmos](https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Halmos/quotations):
'I remember one occasion when I tried to add a little seasoning to a review, but I wasn't allowed to. The paper was by <NAME>, and it was a perfectly sound contribution to abstract measure theory. The domains of the underlying measures were not sets but elements of more general Boolean algebras, and their range consisted not of positive numbers but of certain abstract equivalence classes. My proposed first sentence was: "The author discusses valueless measures in pointless spaces."'
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: I am not on a review board, but I have authored or co-authored a lot of papers and I do statistical reviews for a couple of journals (over 1000 reviews by now).
A couple thoughts:
1. The authors are quite likely to be from another country. Even if their English is quite fluent in the paper (and I've read lots of papers where that is not the case), fluency in an academic style is quite different from overall fluency. Also, it could well be that some of the authors are much less fluent.
2. Even among totally fluent speakers, humor translates badly from one culture to another. To see this, read some comedy from 1600.
3. Many authors, when they see that envelope (or e-mail address) from the journal are in a highly fragile state. Maybe the author is just fine with humor in their everyday life, often joking with their colleagues and friends. But ... this isn't normal times.
4. The usual tone of a review is *formal*.
So .... I would avoid any humor at all. For some journals, you can communicate to the editor separately from the authors. That's a place for humor. Or, you can joke around with colleagues:
"You'll never guess what some guy sent in as a paper!"
Finally, on a purely personal note, way back when I was 12 or so, I proved a theorem about the Fibonacci numbers. My math teacher joked about how it was already proven, long ago. That did not make me feel good.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/20
| 696
| 2,239
|
<issue_start>username_0: As part of my social psychology academic research paper, I have difficulty finding information about Software citations. I used the 'R Studio' IDE to do the statistical analysis, and used 'Qualtrics' for my survey.
According to the APA 7, do I even need to cite them? If so, how?<issue_comment>username_1: You may want to give this [Academia question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/125536/should-i-cite-r-or-rstudio) a read.
I'm unsure if RStudio will fall under the *common software* category within the context of your discipline. Might be worthwhile referencing though for *reproducibility*.
There's a difference between `R` and RStudio (the IDE).
---
APA provides a guide for citing Data Sets, Software, and Tests
10.10 Computer Software, Mobile Apps, Apparatuses, and Equipment
[ECU has APA 7 guide](https://libguides.ecu.edu/c.php?g=982594&p=7463680) for software referencing.
A commonly used citation is (see for instance [NIST's citation](https://pages.nist.gov/dimspec/docs/references.html) which is not APA):
RStudio Team. 2020. *RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R*. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC. <http://www.rstudio.com/>
However, given the '*takeover*/*overhaul*', we'll be looking at:
RStudio Team. (2023). *RStudio Desktop IDE* (Version 2023.06.0-421) [Computer software]. PBC. <https://posit.co/products/open-source/rstudio/>
NB: I believe <http://www.rstudio.com/> should be replaced with the proper Posit link.
For **R**, you can tag along the line:
R Core Team (2023). *R (4.3.1) : A language and environment for statistical computing*. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <https://www.R-project.org>
* NB: you may use the `citation()` function in R
[For noting]
Please note *suggested* [generic citation from Posit (PBC)](https://support.posit.co/hc/en-us/articles/206212048-Citing-RStudio) without versioning!
* RStudio Team (2020). *RStudio: Integrated Development for R*. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. <http://www.rstudio.com/>.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It could be important to cite specific packages that you use within R. These documentations are easily findable with a google search of the package.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/21
| 1,071
| 4,274
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let me ask an academician who knows lifehacks well. I'm thinking of ways to avoid the following vicious cycle related to writing manuscripts.
Go straight to one's keyboard or terminal
→ people can't come up with anything
→ People can't write manuscripts
→ Procrastination related to writing them
How can we avoid this vicious circle?
How about starting from the handwriting or brain-storming (e.g., KJ method) stage? Does this method put people off in the aspect of transcribing of handwritten manuscripts? How can we avoid this transcription procrastination problem?
For the time being, is it recommended to input anything what I can come up with and repeat the revision (brush up) with the text-to-speech system?
Dr. SJP of Microsoft Research advocates writing the paper first, but is there possibility
that one may postpone this step. Please also advise how to avoid this procrastination.<issue_comment>username_1: *Full disclaimer that this is a subjective answer which originates from my personal experience from both academic and creative writing. It may not apply to everyone reading this, but I sure hope it will help!*
The way I do it is somewhat similar to the KJ method, except I skip the handwriting part altogether because transcription, in my opinion, sucks. What I do is:
1. I open up a new word document (dubbed lovingly the word-vomit document),
create a few headings like "personal ideas" (sometimes also adding
rough section subheadings), "literature excerpts + sources"
(classified by topic/section/however I think is suitable), and other
relevant headings I might need.
2. I do what needs to be done in the day, making food, doing chores,
regular human stuff etc., and whenever I have a particular idea on
how to start a paragraph in my academic work, or a random sentence I
want to use, I quickly type it down into the document, and go about
my day. Reading some papers and found an excerpt to paraphrase/use?
Copy and paste that bad boy into the word document. Do this for a
few days, and I usually end up with a substantial amount of material
to work with.
3. Once I believe I have enough information to work with, I start to
visualize how my current points in the word-vomit document will fit
in the big-picture. At this point, it becomes more clear to me what
is lacking, what is redundant, and I go from there. Sometimes, if
things are too messy, I'd open up another new word document and do
one more pass of reorganizing. Once I'm done with this, I'm usually
ready to start working on my main document, and everything in a word
file means easy copy-and-pasting/editing my own ideas! I've noticed
that my brain is especially intimidated when staring at a blank
document, but once I have something to work with, either to add to,
edit, or correct, it's substantially easier to manage.
4. When writing the main document, I try not to stress myself too much
on going section by section. Sometimes my brain itches and really
wants to work on a particular section, so I take that free
motivation and do that instead!
Again, I believe there is no "one true answer" when it comes to motivation. Some people like to plan things out and do things methodically, some prefer to let the last-minute adrenaline take over before pumping out words, and others may rely on something in-between. What I'm about to say might sound like (and probably is) a non-answer, but I think it's important to find what's right for you. Everyone is built different mentally, and sometimes it just comes down to experimenting with what works and what doesn't. Whatever you do, just try to do ***something***, any progress in the right step is good progress, however small. :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: For me, I usually draft a plan of analysis before I begin my work. The dataset I'll use, the method, background, simple hypotheses tests.
From then on, if I'm honest, you just gotta be hungry enough! Life for me will get in the way (between school, internship, other projects), but very generally, for the papers I care about, I'm self motivated to move them forward.
And that's what it takes. You have to want to move it forward, as nobody else will do it for you. I don't have a method, so much as I have a mindset.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/21
| 619
| 2,630
|
<issue_start>username_0: National Science Foundation (NSF) has two-month salary cap known as the [two-ninths-rule](https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf08_1/aag_5.jsp):
``Summer salary for faculty members on academic-year appointments is limited to no more than two-ninths of their regular academic-year salary. This limit includes summer salary received from all NSF-funded grants.''
What would happen if an individual has already reached the maximum limit of two months of summer salary from NSF and a new proposal is being recommended for funding? While the distinction between "current and pending" support should make this situation clear, is it necessary for the principal investigator (PI) to communicate this separately with the program officer? Moreover, could this potentially result in the rejection of the new proposal?<issue_comment>username_1: First of all, "recommended for funding" is not funded yet.
Part of the (long, multi-party) process following the recommendation involves a bunch of checks by NSF "career" people (i.e., not academics in rotation at NSF), which includes compliance with all the regulations. This does not answer your question, but it's an important distinction.
Since your proposal is recommended for funding, you should be able to see the panel reviews in research.gov, and also who the program manager who administered the panel was (in case you already don't know).
I would suggest getting in touch with them, and ask.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Research admin here. Essentially, this rule is very fuzzy and interpreted differently by different folks. Some schools are strict, others generous. NSF wrote a clarification in 2017 that clarified nothing. I tend to find in CISE that the Program Officer (PO) makes you promise not to charge more than 2 months prior to taking the new award. At some institutions, this means you have to cost share the effort to track an effort commitment. If it is less than a 25% reduction from the commitment, there is no requirement for prior approval. Thus we usually cut 24% across each fund to get the time back. Personally, I do not charge more than 2 if the effort was committed up front. I only let folks charge more in a true rebudget situation.
Being over-committed generally doesn't result in the proposal being turned down unless it's really bad (usually total commitments). Still, they will ask you about the commitment. It's not a cold rejection email. This process is called a "just in time" or JIT. When you get the request, you should forward it to your assigned research administrator for assistance.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/22
| 1,140
| 4,644
|
<issue_start>username_0: Perhaps this is a ridiculous question, and I couldn't find any previous asker, so forgive me.
Is it possible to earn a doctorates by writing a thesis by yourself and then submitting it to a university?
I have a bachelor's and a masters and I am reading lots of research papers in an unrelated field. I am in a unique situation because I have lots of time, could devote 30-40 hours a week reading and doing research, read many research papers throughout the week and, I think, could conceivably write a thesis with new academic contributions by using the research tools available at the university I teach at (I'm a lecturer) and confirming that this thesis would have meaningful or new contributions, which I assume is one of the requirements of a doctorial thesis.
For someone like this, what are the options available? I know that I could possibly get published if my paper was good enough, but what else could someone in this situation do to get ahead academically and in his career?
I am also aware that part of the value of a doctorate, or any degree, is the prestige due to where the degree was obtained.
Anyhow, I am assuming this is impossible, but I'm also curious why and if there are any other loopholes available for someone in this situation.<issue_comment>username_1: There is something called a [PhD by publication](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy_by_publication). I don't think it is common, at least in the US, but that is essentially what you are describing. Here is an example from [University of Portsmouth](https://www.port.ac.uk/study/postgraduate-research/research-degrees/phd-by-publication) in the UK.
I believe the general idea is that you *already* have a body of work that you then put together into a thesis and defend. Likely you would apply, show that you are "qualified", and then spend some amount of time writing your thesis under the (likely remote) supervision of the university.
I think (I don't know for sure as this isn't a path familiar to me) that it would not be an option without substantial prior publications. It would probably be more straightforward to just start a PhD in your situation since you would need years to accumulate the requisite body of work anyway. Although if you have substantial time and the ability to publish independently, this seems like it is technically an option.
As for prestige, you would have to search out what Universities offer this degree track. Whether or not they are prestigious enough depends on you goals.
One thing to consider, if you don't already have a good bit of research know-how, it will be difficult to do any work independently. There are a ton of pitfalls that are not obvious without experience (or an experienced mentor - like you would have in a traditional PhD program). So while it is easy(ish) to read papers it can be hard to produce good ones.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You question ain't ridiculous, you just need to frame it well enough. Also, don't underestimate the rigour of a Doctorate: it is tasking and demanding.
Regarding your question, yes it is possible to earn a doctorates through various means beyond the traditional '*thesis*' or the US style of courses, exam and dissertation.
However, you just can't write a thesis by yourself and then *submitting it to a university*?
>
> ... what are the options available?
>
>
>
1. Published papers in credible journals (ensure you have some Q1/A rated) and follow the PhD by Publication (retrospective route). I wrote an [answer sometimes back in May](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/196428/162770).
Essentially, you register at a university, write an exegesis/commentary with a golden thread around your existing publications. This is examined with the requirements for PhD (and in the UK and some Australian, appear for *Viva Voce*)
2. Being a lecturer already and in an academic environment, you could register for a Doctorate through distance learning. You'll carry out your research (remotely at your current environment), write up your thesis and submit for examination (and possibly Viva Voce).
You might have the option of submitting a Thesis by Article (similar to retrospective route but in this instance are publications during your candidacy, one or two might be written manuscripts yet to be accepted).
From a documentary analysis I did (for a manuscript under review), there are about 16 UK universities offering PhD by Publication (retrospective route) to everyone, while over 30 offers to staff or alumni or associates with research ties, while some offers to staff only.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/22
| 652
| 2,619
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got my PhD in computer science (in the field of AI with a focus on GNNs) in 2021 from the university of my Iranian home town, which is good, but not widely known.
Afterwards, I worked for six months as a data scientist.
Now we have moved to Munich (Germany) and I've started applying for data-scientist positions and got multiple rejections without interviews. It makes me really disappointed and I don’t know the exact cause of it. I have only four papers in my PhD (almost all first author, one journal, two conferences, and one workshop). I don’t even know whether the reason for my rejections is that I am not a good match for the job, that my résumé and cover letter are not good enough, or that I don’t know the German language (I've asked some of them in LinkedIn and received no reply).
However, I have come up with the thought that I might have better chances when applying for a post-doc (because I have had a two-year sabbatical in Munich during my PhD.
On the other hand, I am afraid that I might leave my post-doc in two years in a worse situation (older without any job experience). I should also mention that I don't like academia that much anymore.
I would appreciate your comment or advice regarding this idea and also if you have any recommendations regarding the application for a job position or any other advice that makes this misery a little bit more tolerable for me.<issue_comment>username_1: I would recommend you to give it a try to get a postdoc position in Germany or elsewhere in Europe.
You are saying:
>
> I am so afraid that I might leave a post-doc in 2 years in a worse situation (older without any job experience).
>
>
>
First of all, a postdoctoral position at a good school is definitely a worthy job experience.
More importantly, after that your CV will carry a "European stamp", so to say. People will often judge you based on your last job. In their eyes, your CV will then look stronger.
Last, and by no means least, while postdocing you will be able to take a course of German, which will then become another good point in your CV.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If your goal is to pursue an **academic job**, a postdoc can certainly be beneficial. It provides valuable research experience and allows you to further develop your expertise.
Even if you are considering an **industry position**, a postdoc in your new country (Germany in this case) can offer relevant work experience and help expand your professional network.
Therefore, a productive postdoc can be advantageous in both academic and industry settings.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/22
| 426
| 1,780
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an Indian physics student who will apply for graduate school in the US around December this year. Along with a European professor I have been working with for one year, I am currently writing a paper that will soon be submitted to, say, Physical Review B. But before that, we will of course, upload it to ArXiv. I am the first author on the paper, and the professor will write me a recommendation letter for solely based on this yearlong project.
Will such a manuscript hold much value in my applications even if the paper is not accepted by December?<issue_comment>username_1: I would recommend you to give it a try to get a postdoc position in Germany or elsewhere in Europe.
You are saying:
>
> I am so afraid that I might leave a post-doc in 2 years in a worse situation (older without any job experience).
>
>
>
First of all, a postdoctoral position at a good school is definitely a worthy job experience.
More importantly, after that your CV will carry a "European stamp", so to say. People will often judge you based on your last job. In their eyes, your CV will then look stronger.
Last, and by no means least, while postdocing you will be able to take a course of German, which will then become another good point in your CV.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If your goal is to pursue an **academic job**, a postdoc can certainly be beneficial. It provides valuable research experience and allows you to further develop your expertise.
Even if you are considering an **industry position**, a postdoc in your new country (Germany in this case) can offer relevant work experience and help expand your professional network.
Therefore, a productive postdoc can be advantageous in both academic and industry settings.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/22
| 1,420
| 6,283
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a tenure-track assistant professor interview coming up. I am proposing a monograph and wanted to include a visual to go with it. Is it too much to include a fake book cover to show interest/determination? Or do you think it would look good?<issue_comment>username_1: Honestly, if I received a manuscript with a fake cover on it, I would think it was a bit goofy. It would not make me angry or decide to reject the work out of hand. But it likely would not really affect my opinion on the broader work.
Having a formal cover page is a good thing. I would expect that. But a stylized cover would be a bit odd.
Now, of course if you are proposing a monograph in something like children's literature, this advice may not hold. But generally, just a simple cover page will suffice.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: #### *Ceteris paribus*, I like pretty things more than plain things
Personally, I see no problem with having a draft book cover including full visualisation --- it gives a draft impression of what the book might look like when it is finished. I would also find it reasonable for a draft book to include a draft [edition notice page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition_notice) containing whatever relevant publication information is already known, plus placeholders for the rest. Just as you might reasonably have a draft of a book with a "working title", similarly you may have a draft of a book with a "working visualisation" and a "working edition notice". Both of these things contribute to making the book look "real" while it is still in draft form.
Now an important part: if you are going to use a draft visualisation, you should generally ensure that you are using visuals that you have permission to use under relevant copyright/IP law, and you should include a copyright statement to this effect in an appropriate place in your draft. If you are not publishing your draft (i.e., you are just circulating it internally for review) then you could probably get away with using a draft visualisation without permission, but you should still make clear the status of the relevant copyright/IP in an appropriate place in your draft. (And obviously, if you want to go ahead with using that visualisation when you publish then you will need to get permission to use it.)
If you end up with a professional publisher, they will of course use their own house templates for the cover pages, cover art, the edition notice page, copyright notices, and other relevant information pages. Nevertheless, having a draft placeholder for these during the writing and review stage can assist readers to see what the book might look like when it is finished. While others might disagree, my personal view is that I would prefer to see a draft that includes these elements, since it will tend to be prettier and seem more complete than a "plain" draft.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In your question, you say that you are "proposing" a monograph. This suggests that you don't actually have a contract signed with a publisher yet. If that is the case, I think it is a little bit dangerous to prepare a cover by yourself.
The people who review your application want to see concrete results, achievements that have already taken place. If you already have a book contract signed, then at least the faculty can understand that there is a very strong likelihood of the book getting published, and therefore that is still acceptable for them.
But, if you present a fake cover for a book that you are still planning to propose in the future, this might give a misleading impression that the publication of your book is already fully decided. And if the reviewers realize after doing a closer examination that in fact you don't have a contract signed, then they might become very suspicious about your whole application. They might say "well, if this book is not guaranteed to happen, then there might be other things in the application that are presented in a misleading way."
If you already have a signed contract, then I think it's ok to have a mock cover, or you can use the logo of the publisher together with 2 or 3 example covers from other books published by the same publisher in the same book series.
Another important thing is whether you have good graphic design skills or not. A poorly-designed cover might show you in a bad light. If you still want to go with the idea of creating a cover, then you should make it clear that the cover is a mock cover. You could include a message clearly saying "mock cover" or something similar. In any case, you have to be upfront and honest about the actual status of your book so that it doesn't mislead anyone.
Personally, I think it would be better if, instead of a cover, you use 2 or 3 representative images of your research in order to give the reviewers an idea of what the book would look like and what its main theme is.
Edit: as pointed out by @JanusBahsJacquet in the comments section, having a signed contract does not guarantee in any way that the book will actually be published. Nevertheless, a signed contract is still interpreted by reviewers as a positive sign, because generally speaking, most signed contracts end up as published books.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Let’s say it takes you 2 hours to mock up a nice looking cover. You could have used those 2 hours instead to actually work on the content for your book. What does it say about you that you chose to spend them doing a cover for a book that hasn’t yet been written, instead of actually writing something?
To me, if I were interviewing you I would see this as a signal that you are a person who cares more about appearances than about substance, and who wants to get credit for things before doing them; the kind of person who, say, starts a PhD in 2023 and immediately adds the line “PhD Harvard, 2028 (expected)” on their CV, or fills their publication list with vaporware “in preparation” papers, many of which will never get written. Nope. Do the work first, then claim the credit for it. You won’t get any points from me for fake book covers — even if they are only presented as part of a proposal. On the contrary, I might well interpret it as a red (or at least yellow) flag.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/22
| 1,305
| 5,709
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am nearing the end of my Ph.D. at a R1 University in the United States. My degree is geography, though the research I do focuses on public health, epidemiology, and ecology. I have 7 publications, including 3 first-author publications, with another first-author publication in review. This is not including any publications that are a direct result of my Ph.D. research, which may be 3-5 publications and should come over the next few years or so.
I am unclear about the priorities for job hunting. Ideally, I would like to find a tenure-track assistant professor position without having to do a postdoc, though that is becoming increasingly rare.
Presumably acquiring grant funding and having a successful history of grant funding makes an applicant more competitive. With this in mind, should a nearly complete Ph.D. Candidate spend time searching for grant funding in addition to job hunting, or should they focus on getting a good postdoc? Further, if a tenure-track position is gained, does the grant funding search generally begin after that point?
EDIT: Added context about my field of research and degree, as well as publication history.<issue_comment>username_1: Your priorities for job hunting should include both exploring postdoctoral opportunities and searching for tenure-track assistant professor positions. While the preference is to secure a tenure-track position directly, it's important to be aware that such positions without a postdoc are becoming less common in academia.
Acquiring grant funding and demonstrating a successful track record in securing grants will indeed enhance your competitiveness as an applicant. This is not, however, expected for a tenure-track faculty position application as it is typically very hard, and thus rare. Yet, it is a plus. The search for grant funding typically begins after securing the faculty position.
It is worth noting that some faculty positions may require applicants to prioritize teaching and mentoring. Therefore, it's essential to carefully review the specific requirements and expectations of each position you apply for.
Ultimately, balancing your time and efforts between improving your publication and teaching/mentoring profile and pursuing grant funding should be based on your individual career goals, the competitiveness of the job market in your field, and the availability of funding opportunities aligned with your research interests. My expertise and experience are in the field of engineering.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Most funding you would receive needs an institutional "home." And it is generally rather cumbersome (some would say a giant pain in the neck) to move funding between institutions. I would recommend that if you are applying for any grants right now, you do so in partnership with someone who already has a stable position and who would be the primary PI.
On the job search, it is usually sufficient at this stage to have a very good idea of what you plan to apply for vs. having already applied for it. They want to see you have a research plan, and this includes having a funding plan.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> With this in mind, should a nearly complete Ph.D. Candidate spend time
> searching for grant funding in addition to job hunting, or should they
> focus on getting a good postdoc?
>
>
>
If you want to stay in academia, chances are that you need to find your own money.
Research grants are a scarce resource. Available postdoc positions even scarcer.
Applying to postdoc positions come with a small time/financial overhead (preparing the CV, preparing the cover letter, a couple of interviews, often some component of the trip to the interview is paid) and a lot of frustration (few positions being open, far and apart).
Writing a research proposal come with a huge time overhead (preparing the CV, preparing the reference letters, preparing the research project, preparing all the formalities) but then it is *your* project, so the reward is immensely bigger. And the frustration is big but a bit smaller in comparison to applying to postdoc positions, every time you learn a little bit more about the relevant comunity your research may have an impact, as well as about your research and yourself.
Learning how to write a research grant can be an immensely useful skill that can be re-used in many aspects of your professional life. It is probably the only skill worthwhile of your unpaid time during your PhD and Postdoc. Since you already have at least one publication (i.e. you can prove "I can publish my research"), writing research proposals is way more valuable *for you* than doing research for free (with extra hours, working during holidays, etcetc the general "acceptable" science working conditions) to publish something with your professor/supervisor as a co-author (whatever your relation is with them, cna be marvellous or horrible, it does not matter).
--------------*Disclaimer*--------------
At the higher ideal and ethical level, I do not support the huge waste of human and brain time involved in 100 researchers writing 100 proposals to have only 10 of them accepted.
Unfortunately the R1 system OP is aiming at is a supporting column of this system, better be safe in knowing how it works rather than being sorry. I hope GPTChat-based proposal writing codes will hijack completely the system, letting bright CVs and bright ideas shine, without much wasting time in the cumbersome bureacuracies of applying for grants/research funds, often applying for not-for-profit foundations which are simply big boxes used to avoid paying taxes and giving back peanuts to society.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/22
| 1,952
| 8,141
|
<issue_start>username_0: It's obviously a very undesirable thing to even contemplate suing my university, but please hear me out on it. I'm leaning in that direction and seeking advice from anyone who's been there before, please. Please let me know how it went, whether it was a good idea or a bad idea and all.
I go to a top 10 Canadian university, and we don't really do rankings or such so my school is reputation enough. In fact, it's more reputable than surrounding ones, so people have cautioned me against going running for the hills at this point, as I might jeopardize grad school opportunities. So, I may be stuck here and I may have to carefully navigate this situation, but in fairness to myself, hiring a lawyer may be my only option at this point. I study physics and economics, upper yrs.
However, bullying drove me away from physics, and now I'm seeking to major in pure math. I'm all signed up for the math courses for the upcoming academic year, and of course, physicists have to take a strong mathematical foundation in linear algebra and in calculus. So, although I'm very upset about having been driven out of physics by bullies, I'm trying to shrug it off an remain optimistic for all that I will learn as a future mathematician.
Nonetheless, I hit a new roadblock, and now I am at the last tether of my patience. Last semester, an economics professor relentlessly bullied and harassed me for my disabilities and injuries (I've been hit by a car). He called me a useless, broken kitten that no one would ever pick up from the animal shelter, and mistreated me in other ways as well. All of my assignments automatically got 0's on them, so this person was out to get me. I should have dropped the course, but you know, by the time I realized someone was out to get me, it was too late to drop penalty-free. Plus, I required this course if I wanted to get a double major in economics.
However, my tenacity in hanging tight backfired on me in the end. I got an F in the course. This is my first-ever failed grade in anything mathematics, economics, or even business-related (I was part of the business school before realizing that pure sciences were more my thing; I used to study finance). I had reached out to the department head the day of my final exam, saying that I would get an automatic F in the course because the game was rigged against me; this prof wanted to fail me. Furthermore, I had argued that I probably deserved an automatic pass in the course (C minus or greater), with a long list of reasons, including the bullying and harassment issues. I had also argued that I had run small businesses prior to re-engaging in university studies, so I almost deserved a free credit class anyhow. This was not an "entitlement" based argument, but rather, an argument that the school wouldn't want me suing for the disability harassment.
Lo and behold, I finally got my results in. I hadn't even bothered to check my transcript, so an exam supervisor had broken to me the scores to rip off the band-aid. We all knew I was headed for an F in that single course. I had seen it coming from 10k miles away, and it came. The dpt head is being stubborn with me. Several people have listened to my concerns about the disability harassment, including a school lawyer. But no one has taken my F seriously, which means that I'm left to hire a lawyer, from the looks of it. I'm exhausted, burnt-out from this situation, and depleted. Help please? How to best navigate the legal process? To be fair, I did not deserve an F, as this prof had wanted to see me fail and had gone out of his way to see it happen. Nonetheless, even if I *had* truly failed, this would have been the first time I could have failed such a class, and maybe it's no wonder why I couldn't have performed by best on the final exam (worth 70%) of my grade. Would appreciate any thoughts or perspectives, thanks.
edit: I can't delete a question that's been posted. This isn't about extortion, as I faced very bad circumstances with a professor and these obviously greatly hindered my ability to complete the coursework. I wound up consulting a lawyer but I doubt that I will pursue any serious form of legal action here. I think that people saying negative stuff obviously don't know what it's like to be bullied or harassed, as that's far scarier than involving a lawyer in anything. Nonetheless, I'm not going to comment further on anything here.<issue_comment>username_1: Universities take inclusion and diversity very seriously and blatant cases of bullying need to reported appropriately.
Before considering suing the university, you might want to consider a simpler option of finding office that deal with academic grievances. The usually set up a separate panel having no conflict of interest. I Will strongly recommend that
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm very sorry to hear about your experience. I just want to address one specific part:
>
> Furthermore, I had argued that I probably deserved an automatic pass in the course (C minus or greater), with a long list of reasons, including the bullying and harassment issues. I had also argued that I had run small businesses prior to re-engaging in university studies, so I almost deserved a free credit class anyhow. This was not an "entitlement" based argument, but rather, an argument that the school wouldn't want me suing for the disability harassment.
>
>
>
To be honest, I don't think this is a likely outcome at all. Academics in general, including your university's administrators, are likely to be dead-set against anything that looks like awarding academic credit when academic standards were not met, regardless of the circumstances.
As far as "already knowing the material": if that is something the university is generally willing to consider in awarding credit, they will have a documented procedure for you to demonstrate that knowledge and experience (e.g. credit by examination or "challenge"), and they're not likely to be willing to consider bypassing it.
Finally, "you wouldn't want me suing" can easily come across as pure extortion, making the university much less willing to compromise.
Instead of framing it as "I deserve credit for the course", I think you'll get farther by framing it as "I want a fair opportunity to complete the coursework and have it fairly evaluated". Here are some possible solutions that I think the university might be more willing to consider, alone or in combinations:
* Take the coursework you had originally submitted, and have it regraded by somebody else. (Of course, this will not help if, due to the harassment or for any other reason, you were not able to submit work that was at a passing level.)
* Drop the course from your transcript altogether.
* Refund your tuition for the course, and/or let you retake it for free.
* Let you demonstrate knowledge of the course material in some other way, e.g. by taking some version of a final exam, and assign a grade based on your performance on that.
* Substitute some other relevant course (possibly from a different institution) to fulfill the requirement for the major.
* Pay you some amount of money to settle your legal claims.
Also, at this point, I think you should at least consult with a lawyer, if legal action is within the realm of options you want to consider. It isn't something you can reasonably take on by yourself, and without proper legal advice, you risk making the situation much worse.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This is what I recently suggested to a colleague that is having difficulties in reconcile his perspective with the one of his supervisor.
<https://francescolelli.info/more/resolving-conflicts-in-academia/>
In general, suing your institution should be considered as a last resort when internal avenues have been exhausted. Consequently, I would definitively recommend you to try an internal solution before. Overall, it is essential to evaluate the specific circumstances of your conflict and choose the most appropriate course of action based on your unique situation and the advice received from professionals.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/23
| 558
| 1,958
|
<issue_start>username_0: [Quote from Swiss sanction on North Korea](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2016/280/de#art_3):
>
> Any scientific and technical cooperation with persons or groups officially sponsored by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or representing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shall be suspended; with the exception of cooperation in the medical field.
>
>
>
Does this mean Swiss academics/editors cannot review/handle North Korean papers, unless the field is medicine? If yes: which other countries also has a similar sanction in place? If no: are there any countries which does have such a sanction?
Related: [Does Iran's sanction play a pivotal role in rejecting papers from a journal?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/144063/does-irans-sanction-play-a-pivotal-role-in-rejecting-papers-from-a-journal), but this question is for a different sanctioned country.<issue_comment>username_1: This Swiss sanction is actually the implementation of UN security council resolution 2321.
>
> The Security Council [...]
>
>
> 11. Decides that all Member States shall suspend scientific and technical
> cooperation involving persons or groups officially sponsored by or
> representing the DPRK except for medical exchanges
>
>
>
<https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/s/res/2321-%282016%29>
This resolution is binding according to international law. I haven't found a list which countries have actually implemented the resolution, but I assume such list will consist of at least most countries from the Western world.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The European Union [ratified on February 2017](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/history-north-korea/) the additional sanctions against the DPRK: transposition of UN sanctions (UNSC resolution 2321), including
>
> the measures to suspend scientific and technical cooperation, except
> for medical exchanges
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/23
| 810
| 3,633
|
<issue_start>username_0: Someone spread nefarious but completely unfounded ethical allegations against me. That person said he/she was told that I forced a student to plagiarize his/her paper whereas I was the one who strongly advocated for accepting the paper. The paper eventually was rejected because of the oppositions of other reviewers.
The allegations have been heard by many senior people in my field, and have already caused a lot of damage to me, e.g. an honor (given once a year and is highly visible) being retracted, people avoiding me in professional meetings, and who knows what comes next. The person who spread the disinformation is a big shot, is not willing to engage in conversations with me, and is in the so called "leadership" position that can make a lot of decisions. I am very junior and feel powerless.
What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: I am going to assume that the allegations are completely baseless as you state. If not - I suggest reaching out to the student as a first step to get their version of events, and potentially apologize/take steps to amend the situation. I am gently suggesting looking into the other side because it seems unlikely that a senior person will go spreading unfounded rumors for the fun of it.
Do you have senior folks on your side? Former advisor, mentor? Talk to them and have them intercede on your behalf.
If this has serious repercussions for you, I suggest that you also contact professional organizations that you both belong to (in computer science I’d think of the ACM or IEEE), they have harassment policies that this falls under. You can also reach out to your department head, since this has serious reputational implications for your department as well.
Good luck, this is an unfortunate situation.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The first thing I recommend you do is to document all the problems at issue. Obtain relevant statements and documentation showing your dealings with this other student, including any evidence that would show that the allegations against you are false. Obtain relevant statements and documentation of any instance where you know or suspect that false information has been spread about you, and document the negative impact on yourself. Talk to the people in your field that have heard the allegations and ask them if they can confirm the source of those allegations. Document, document, document.
There are multiple avenues you could consider pursuing to take action in this matter. One option would be to make an internal complaint within your university. Another option would be to make an external complaint to a relevant workplace tribunal. Another option would be to sue the university and/or professor for defamation. These options could be used separately or together. For the latter two actions, you should hire a lawyer to advise you and to review the evidence for your complaint. If you are lodging an internal complaint at the university then you can expect the university to investigate the matter, but if you are making an external complaint then you will need to rely on your own investigation and evidence.
Since this issue appears to be causing you significant career damage, this is probably a situation where it would be worth spending some money to go and see an employment lawyer to get expert advice. An employment lawyer will be able to tell you the relevant law in your jurisdiction, tell you all your options for different types of actions, tell you the rules that apply to each, and reivew your evidence to see if it is strong enough to warrant actions of different kinds.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/23
| 661
| 2,923
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does a scientific book offers something to the author's CV or is it better to write journals/papers in order to improve his/her CV?
update (24/06/2023):
I am talking about the following:
1. Computer Science/Electrical Engineering/Electronic Engineering/Applied Mathematics
2. By saying scientific book I mean for instance: let's say someone wants to write a book for Algorithms targeting CS undergraduate/graduate university students
3. In order to improve the author's CV targeting let's say to a research position in the future, in a University<issue_comment>username_1: This depends very much on the field. In general a scientific book usually contains sufficient material that would result in a number of journal articles.
After clarification:
Textbooks usually do not count towards research goals or for establishing research potential, but are an asset for teaching goals / establishment of teaching potential. A monograph such as a Springer Lecture Note in Mathematics will take the place of several journal articles. For example, in Mathematics, your Ph. D. thesis should give you a number of papers, but if you are lucky and get the chance, a Springer Lecture Note would be a single publication out of your thesis. It is true that some people manage to get a book out of a number of articles, in which case the book would be seen as at least an additional article.
Since contents matter, and quality gets assessed, generic answers are not going to be very accurate.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> By saying scientific book I mean for instance: let's say someone wants to write a book for Algorithms targeting CS undergraduate/graduate university students
>
>
>
To get an academic position you need to publish research, which means *creating new knowledge*. This type of knowledge is usually published in peer reviewed journals, not in books. On occasion, it may be published in book form, in what is usually referred to as a *research monograph*, which is distinct from the kind of book you are describing, usually referred to as a *textbook*.
Writing a textbook will have very limited value in helping you launch an academic career. It might be beneficial as something that *complements* a body of research published in peer reviewed journals, but on its own, it won’t count for much in the disciplines you listed. Moreover, writing a textbook is a very time-consuming task that has a high opportunity cost. If you spend the time it takes to write a textbook, you would be giving up a huge amount of time that would have been available for you to do and publish research. That would put you at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to other people at a similar career stage who are not writing textbooks.
All things considered, for early career researchers writing a textbook is not a good way to advance your academic career.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/23
| 2,393
| 10,482
|
<issue_start>username_0: If this occurs, is this normal? It seems like work necessary for an administrator. Moreover, there is nothing to learn from doing so. It just seems like a lot of work towards something that is not a phd-student/postdoc's job.
The work on grants are slightly related to with the work I am involved in, but not directly. For example, requesting to write reports closing out existing grants.
Just curious on community thoughts here.<issue_comment>username_1: As a PI I ask students/postdocs to draft grant reports for projects that they are working on. Especially if they are the ones leading the project! And then I give them feedback on the draft, so they can learn how to fill out these reports once they have their own group.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: If you're paid from a grant, it is reasonable to expect you to also work on the less-glamorous side of grant management -- such as writing reports and collecting data about the work you did. That's just part of it. This is no different than the dentist filling in some paperwork about what they did for the records after seeing a patient; or a technician making notes about what they fixed when they came out to look at your broken airconditioner.
And, as @username_1 notes, this is also a learning and teaching opportunity.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: If you want to make a career as a researcher you will need to attract funding. Your PI is giving you an opportunity to learn the necessary skills.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I wish I had had the opportunity to learn this properly by having one of my former PIs train me in this particular aspect of the job.
I do want to add that in my view there is a difference who to ask. A PhD student who has no interest in continuing in academia? Maybe not the best use of that person's time (and maybe not the best quality of the grant report given that this person may be less invested in doing this to the nines). But a postdoc? Definitely OK in terms of seniority and definitely worthwhile if this person wants to continue in academia. All this being said, I do think it also depends on the overall vibe that the PI gives of: Are they making this feel like "you do my admin" or like "this comes with the job and this a great learning experience and let me coach you in how to do this".
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Even if you are not directly funded from the grant do not refuse. Your work will help both you and your PI. You should also ask him to let you help with the grant preparation. You'll make a positive impression and you will learn how to do the disgusting part of the PI's work from someone who is already reasonably good at it. Learning grant writing alone, by trial and error can cost you a lot of time and rob you of many early career opportunities.
Getting a research grant is a lot harder than it used to be 10 or 20 years ago. Governments are trying to move money in critical areas, so the funding for science is a lot less than it used to be. In my country, the chance of getting a grant is less than 5%, and if you account for corruption and geniuses (real ones) is less than 1%.
The reason I think you should get involved with grant writing and the silly paperwork attached to it, is that you'll have the training and understanding how grants work before most of the PhDs in your cohort. When you and 10 others will apply for the same chunk of money, your grant writing/managing experience is likely to make the difference.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: It really depends on the specifics of the "administrative work" you are being asked to do. For example and as others have mentioned, it would be reasonable for your PI to ask you to write a report about a grant that benefits you, even if the benefits are not direct. Examples of indirect benefits are access to materials and equipment product of said grant. On your question, you mention having to log in to the grant admin website and enter information. That's a reasonable request. Making photocopies or scanning documents are just part of the administrative BS we all have to do every day.
I once worked under a PI whose lab tech quit, and he refused to hire a replacement. So he decided to make me an unpaid technician, on top of my graduate student duties: I had to take training on using the university purchasing system and manage all procurement of materials for everybody in the lab, including other postdocs and other grad students. I then was asked to oversee the lab, manage equipment use and repairs, etc. i.e. everything that the old tech used to do. At first I thought of it as unfair, but then I realized that it came with a lot of benefits. With the extra work came the power to order whatever materials I needed for my research. Because he allowed me the freedom to experiment (and spend) I developed alternate protocols that saved the lab tens of thousands of dollars. And I got a lot of research and publications out.
I also once once worked with a PI that was down right exploitative of anybody who depended on him for anything. His grad students had to do everything for him: teach his lectures, write his exams, grade everything, even post final grades for his classes. He had grad students managing his lab and he never walked by the lab. At one point he even moved overseas for an extended period and left his students to fend for themselves. He took on an MS student on a student visa and made her the de facto secretary, and provided zero training until she quit. It was all justified under the "this is a good learning experience for you" excuse, but it was never.
I hope to have made the point that to the question "is it common to have grad student to admin work?", the answer is really that it depends. Having direct access to how the grant reporting system works has a lot of upsides. Unless you are only being asked to fetch coffee and make photocopies, as unpaid exploitation of grad students go, this is mild at worst and at best a good training opportunity.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: *"It is part of the business." "It commonly happens." "You will get experience".* But you asked if it was fair. So, although many supervisors and principle investigators here are saying yes it is fair, I would say it really depends...
Unfortunately, the priorities of the supervisor do not necessarily intersect or coincide with your interests or priorities. The more important question is: **Should such administrative work have your priority at this moment?**
* How will it affect you planning, other tasks, and responsibilities?
* Did the supervisor tell you in advance that this was going to be part
of the job?
* Are you pursuing to the goal of staying in academia and
writing grants later?
* Do you want to stay longer in that research
group, do they even offer you to stay longer?
* Will you be involved in
a feedback loop of the proposal to learn, or are you just used as a
workhorse?
* On the other hand, what would be the consequences of saying no? (if it is even possible to say no)
Yes you will learn from writing a grant proposal, but it also takes time and energy. It would be rational to allocate your limited resources wisely. And for that, you need to consider your particular situation and the possible consequences, the choices, and priorities you have.
Because gaining experience in writing grant proposals for others will not necessarily be a wise choice if you are at the end of a temporary contract trying to finish your PhD or project. I have seen people in the final phase of their PhD thesis writing, who were going to be ditched, from further funding, still getting additional teaching and research assignments in their last months without getting tangible perspectives on an extension. Others got so many additional duties that they voluntary prefered to finish their PhD on social/unemployment funding, or during the evenings and weekends during a new job, because it would give them more time to do so than in their academic job. Some finished successfully, but a considerable fraction did not submit and did not obtain their PhD. Some had to take strategic holidays during the last months of their university contract, just to get enough time to finish their thesis, some were even not allowed to take their holidays. These experiences at horror supervisors were hopefully exceptional from a global perspective, but not from a local perspective. Unfortunately, these things do happen. Is it professional abuse, or is it normal, or both?
Saying no to such additional tasks is a difficult topic to speak about. Because it is very common that supervisors and principle investigators are asking for extra work, without offering corresponding extensions, or additional resources. Maybe the supervisors were once treated the same, maybe they got used to treating others like that. And hey they are your supervisor, at least in Germany they have a big finger deciding in when you can submit and the grading of the thesis, if you get another extension, and possibly they are paying you now. So how much freedom do you really have to say no? Are the consequences of saying no worse, than the work that you could avoid by saying no? If it is unjust, To who in the organization, could you report the situation, ask for counsel, or escalate the situation, without the risk of unfavorable consequences?
Maybe sometimes saying no at work, becomes dangerously similar as saying no in another MeToo type of situations, in which it is often about the power balance and distribution. One of the issues is that in many European universities there is no feedback mechanism or leverage to deal with such "gray area" behavior of Professors.
As in many cases the supervisors (or other people with authority) that give their 'subordinates' the true freedom and possibility to say 'no', are relatively rare. Often the people and good supervisors, who do give the possibility to say no, are also the ones to which saying yes will be a great experience. In the other case, if you have no real choice you probably also have to say yes anyway.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_8: I helped my professor in a project, and learnt how it is different from a paper publication. It was a great learning experience although he didn't appoint me in his lab or any in the University. But I got a better position where I was also asked to write the lab project.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/23
| 1,411
| 6,049
|
<issue_start>username_0: This appears to be a difficult thing to search for, given the plethora of stuff out there on, say, the maximum number of universities to apply for a PhD, the person with the most PhDs, *etc.*, when I search for things like, "What is the highest number of PhD attempts for one person?" - and so on.
There doesn't seem to be anything like this question here on Academia SE.
The Question:
-------------
>
> What is the distribution of the number of PhD attempts among PhD holders?
>
>
>
Clarification:
--------------
I mean, does it fall on a bell curve? What's the average? What is the most number of failed PhD attempts for a PhD holder?
What classifies as a failed attempt? To me, starting but not obtaining the PhD, for whatever reason.
A "PhD attempt" here, I suppose, would be enrolment on a PhD programme.
If this data could be sorted by country, subject, *etc.*, then that would be a great; I'm just looking for the overall statistics though.
This reminds me of the popular claim that the average millionaire goes bankrupt at least 3.5 times. Something like that, but in PhD terms, might serve to motivate students like me.
I'm on my second attempt.<issue_comment>username_1: I am not aware of any existing empirical research on the number of "attempts" within a PhD program, but I'll give some conextual information that is relevant for anyone planning to undertake this type of research, and the types of barriers and issues that may arise. It is noteable that there is existing data on the *time-to-complete* for successful PhD candidates, and this could be useful as a rough proxy for what you want to know.
At most universities in most countries, the PhD candidature involves a set of milestones and progress checks throughout the program, followed by submission of a dissertation that is reviewed against a set of possible outcomes ("scores") that say whether it is acceptable for the degree and whether the dissertation requires any revisions. The scoring rubric may differ between universities, but it would typically use at least four categories:
* **1 - Acceptance:** Dissertation is acceptable without further revisions, so degree should be awarded now. (Referees might make suggested revisions that are non-compulsory.)
* **2 - Revision with internal review:** Dissertation requires minor revisions and re-review that can be done internally at the university (withour sending back to referees), so degree should not yet be awarded.
* **3 - Revision with external review:** Dissertation requires revisions and subsequent review by the referees, so degree should not yet be awarded.
* **4 - Rejection:** Dissertation is not of sufficient quality for the award, even with revisions.
As noted, different insitutions (and different countries) may have different requirements for their PhD degree and may have differences in their scoring system. Some will use a more detailed scoring system than the above, but usually this will include an outcome for acceptance, outcome for revise-and-resubmit (with internal or external review), and an outcome for rejection.
---
**What would research on this require?** If one were to undertake empirical research on PhD "attempts", a substantial part of this research would be looking at the number of submissions for the dissertation before it is accepted and the outcomes of these submissions under the relevant scoring rubrics. (I note that you are conditioning on award of the PhD, so you are not interested in failed attempts.)
These submission scores are private information held by the university (much like class marks), so it would not typically be accessible by an outside party. Consequently, in order to obtain this information for research you would need to undertake an ethics review, make a successful request for the information to the university, and you would need to demonstrate appropriate safeguards in the research which would make the data safe and the published results non-identifiable. Since you would want data from a substantial number of universities (which is unlikely to be held centrally), this would be a large data-sourcing exercise.
Moreover, because the scoring systems at universities may differ, you might need to account for different pathways to acceptance at different institutions. This could add a layer of complexity to the research, since it could potentially make the number of "attempts" non-comparable across different universities. Finally, there may also be other requirements of different PhD programs in addition to submitting a successful dissertation. Other requirements may also differ between universities and could potentially make it difficult to count or compare "attempts".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As a partial answer, consider this other question:
[**Is it true that almost everyone who starts a PhD and sticks around long enough can get one?**](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/140698/is-it-true-that-almost-everyone-who-starts-a-phd-and-sticks-around-long-enough-c)
The selected answer there boils down to, "this is pretty much the case". Top answers present the following statistics:
* Success rate in the UK is around 80% (Times Higher Education), with the expectation that the rate is similar throughout Europe.
* Success rate in the US is around 50% (Chronicle of Higher Education).
If we put these together then the success rate across PhD programs in the Western world must be above 50%. And this implies that the mode, the median, and the rounded mean (whatever flavor of "average" you like) will be "1"; and that the distribution will be necessarily right-skewed.
To the extent that in the cited statistics, some people are being double-counted on the negative side (failing multiple programs), then this would increase the individual success rate (i.e., a higher proportion with the modal count of "1"). On the other hand, I assume that the number of people being double-counted on the positive side (getting multiple PhDs) is negligible.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/24
| 426
| 1,857
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was wondering whether one's submission history to a particular journal plays an important role / is considered by a handling editor? Let's assume that one submits to a particular journal multiple times and gets rejected in the majority of cases. Will this adversely affect the handling of your most recent submission, e.g., does the editor think "oh no, not again this guy"? Do handling editors have access to an authors previous (rejected) submissions?
EDIT: Previously I did not find this related post: [Strategy for submission of articles to highly ranked journals](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9661/strategy-for-submission-of-articles-to-highly-ranked-journals?rq=1)
I am sorry for opening and the inconvenience.<issue_comment>username_1: I assume that editors normally have better things to do than researching the submission history of an author of a new submission, even though they probably could. But a submission should be treated on its own merits and the submission history shouldn't play a role, so I don't see why an editor would invest effort into looking at this.
The editor of course may remember you. They shouldn't be biased by this, but there is unconscious bias so it cannot be ruled out. However I'd believe this will only be the case if you submitted extraordinarily bad or extraordinarily many papers that got rejected. If we're talking top journals, many people hope to get published there because of the career boost, and this means it's fairly normal that some people submit a lot there even if often rejected.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As an editor of Elsevier and IEEE, I see no option to check an author's submission history. All I see are the author's publications.
Having a high quality publication record helps, but each paper is judged on its own merit.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/24
| 1,395
| 6,147
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a homepage where I typically put my published manuscripts on together with information about me. I have a tracker/analytics page that tells me which paper is getting more downloads/views, because I am interested in knowing which of my work/projects people are most interested in (citations don’t always equate that, my most “active” paper has a few citations).
A colleague of mine told me this might be perceived by some as inappropriate. I don’t really check countries/individual information of visitors, just an aggregate on a per paper basis.
Is this generally ok or should I deactivate the analytics link?<issue_comment>username_1: Just be careful you're complying with consent.
Perhaps the most rigorous is the EU's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), which states the following [about cookies](https://gdpr.eu/cookies/):
>
> To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:
>
>
> * Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
> * Provide accurate and specific information about the data each cookie tracks and its purpose in plain language before consent is received.
> * Document and store consent received from users.
> * Allow users to access your service even if they refuse to allow the use of certain cookies
> * Make it as easy for users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give their consent in the first place.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> A colleague of mine told me this might be perceived by some as inappropriate.
>
>
>
By whom exactly? "Some?" As opposed to what, every single website on the Internet? It does not seem that you are proposing to place a cookie that will track the user's activity across the Internet. You just want to see how many people are visiting your page. Totally appropriate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: EDIT 2: I have just read that you are using Google Analytics. I did not realise that was the case when originally reading your question. I think that you should mention this in your question, because it is very different to what I had imagined when originally reading it. In this case, I would most definitely recommend that you have a disclaimer that you are using Google Analytics on your web page. Google Analytics, as others have said, sells data to third parties, that's why the service is free. There's no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. I'd recommend you use something other than Google Analytics to track your downloads. How are you hosting your site? Is it through a paid server, or are you hosting the server yourself? There are plenty of ways that you can analyse how many downloads of your papers are occurring without resorting to Google Analytics.
EDIT: (After received constructive criticism)
I personally do not view it as inappropriate, so long that you are collecting anonymised data, and not logging the IP addresses of individuals who download your papers. If this is the case, you can have a simple message saying "I compile anonymised data relating to the download and view counts of individual papers, to help me determine which of my papers garner greater interest, which guides me to understand which of my topics people are most interested in. I do not log the IP addresses associated with these downloads nor do I log any other personal information." If this is the case, I believe that it is not an invasion of privacy, because you aren't logging who has read your papers.
I find it strange that an individual would state that people would find this inappropriate when it is a standard feature of virtually all cloud hosting services, and (assuming it is anonymous) does not seem to me to constitute an invasion of privacy, because you would not know who any of those people were. Regarding the country of origin, that could be beneficial to know which countries are most interested in your research, which would be relevant for obtaining grants etc. I don't think it would be an invasion of privacy, because countries comprise large numbers of people, and you would not know which people specifically were reading your papers (again, given that you do not track the IP addresses).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is this generally ok or should I deactivate the analytics link?
>
>
>
It depends in part on what you mean by a "tracker":
* If you're really just counting page views (that is, tracking views rather than view*ers*) then I don't think anyone would object.
* If you're logging and analyzing information that users provide anyway (the IP addresses from which requests originate, for example) then I don't think most people, academic or otherwise, would object, but you may be on shaky ground with respect to some privacy laws, such as the GDPR. In this case, you should consider deactivating the analytics for your own protection.
* If you're installing tracking cookies or using similar technology to identify visitors and track their activity then that's not ok with me, and probably not ok with the EU (GDPR), and maybe not ok with various other countries and their privacy laws. Probably my browser foils your attempt, but I would consider it rude that you tried. In this case, you should deactivate the tracker for your own protection, for your reputation, and because it's the right thing to do.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It's your homepage, you can put whatever you want on it.
There does, in my experience at least, tend to be a higher concentration of 1) people who understand the privacy issues of trackers, and 2) people who care about trackers, in acadaemia but there's no general consensus that this is unacceptable.
Anyone who has a problem with internet trackers probably has browser extensions to block them anyway, and they're always free to not use your website anyway.
Just make sure you have the appropriate consent notices.
---
As a side note, you could capture all of the information you mentioned in your back-end quite comfortably and avoid needing any sort of browser based tracking entirely.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/24
| 1,847
| 7,682
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been thinking about going through the process of writing and publishing a paper about the topic of a project I'm pursuing in my free time (purposefully keeping it vague because it's niche enough to doxx me).
The issue is, it's not at all related to my field of study, there is no way I'll be able to pursue this in the context of my current studies.
I casually inquired with some of my university friends and they said to contact a professor from a relevant field to mentor me and that the professor would probably be excited that someone would voluntarily be interested in such pursuits.
My questions are:
1. Is this something that is allowed? I'm afraid that if I reach out to a professor, they'll just laugh at me.
2. How much should you already have prepared before reaching out to a professor? I have a topic in mind and an idea for a methodology but I haven't actually put together anything yet specifically for this (though I do have a lot of raw data from research I've done for fun).
I know this is closely related to the idea of publishing as a non-academic. But in my head—with the caveat that I have no clue how this works—I would pursue this formally through my university as opposed to writing it up without any guidance and then trying to get it published. (I haven't found anything at my uni about how this would work but I first want to make sure that it's not a waste of time on account of it being a dumb idea).<issue_comment>username_1: Write up the paper. Find a relevant journal. Go to the journal website. Click *Submission Guidelines* or something like that.
Submit.
A professor might help you find a relevant journal. Or tell you if the work is worth publishing. Or help you match your prose to the journal style. But it's not crucial to have a professor behind you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, all depends on how much time, resources, and data you are requesting from the professor. If you already have a solid idea and need a little bit of help, most professors will entertain a short meeting (just send an email to the professor). I would strongly recommend you that you conduct a thorough literature review (which you can do on your own) and highlight how your idea is different from anything that has been done in the relevant field. This would also let you know if you are on a wild goose chase or your idea holds any water.
Just a word of caution, if you are not an expert in the field and haven’t done some homework professors would think it as just waste of their time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: No reason this wouldn't be allowed or even discouraged. [I'm a public policy student](https://aysps.gsu.edu/phd-student/greathouse-jared/). Most of my papers are decidedly NOT geared to public policy journals in any sense of the word. They're geared almost exclusively to econometrics and statistics publications, that many people in my department wouldn't try to or couldn't publish in.
But so what? Even if this was just my hobby, which it isn't, nobody can stop me or would want to stop me, because most of us are adults who can publish wherever we'd like to.
Anyways, I reached out to a friend about a paper we're currently working on. I'm not as good as he is, but I'm good enough to keep up with him (generally) both as a coder and as an econometrician. I like working with him because he's a serious worker and we work well together. I mention this, because so long as you can demonstrate to whoever you work with that you're a *serious*, knowledgeable worker, then most people will be more willing than you might expect to reach out to you! So, reach out if you want. You can develop new connections just like that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I did my PhD in physics and published an article about evolutionary biology - just because I was interested in the topic and thought that the world was painfully missing my ideas in that area.
I sent the paper, got published, did some *gna gna gna*(\*) in front of my wife who was a biologist and that's all.
I feel that way too many people assume that publishing requires some sanctification from a "Professor" or another deity. If your idea is sane and passes the reviewers then you are good to go!
>
> a professor from a relevant field to mentor me
>
>
>
Mentoring is great but usually requires some motivation from the mentor. It really depends on what you want to be mentored about.
If this is "how to write a paper", well, it may be tough (except if they are to be a coauthor, maybe)
If this is to help you in their field then you may be more lucky.
---
(\*) *I told you* in French
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Just one perspective I didn't see mentioned in the other answers is that while I don't know what field this research is in, in my field, reaching out to another professor and having them mentor you on this paper and ultimately included as an author on the paper (per whatever the authorship conventions may be in your field, of course) is a good way to build your network and form collaborations. A very good practice to get used to, and it's the kind of thing I wish I'd been in a better position to do when I was going through school.
However, there are of course many caveats. Getting another professor involved could be invaluable for their experience and insight on the study topic. Having that experience is really valuable for understanding cultural expectations in the field and avoiding you getting labeled as an outsider (usually not explicitly, of course). Or, the professor's involvement could result in a large change of focus that distracts or detracts from your desired vision. I would be reluctant to put my name on a paper whose ideas I didn't materially contribute to, meaning they should want to put in significant input. You might not know how much of a barrier this will be until you try.
Agreed with the other answers that you should do a thorough lit review and make sure you know your stuff. If you don't, reviewers will let you know for sure.
Also journals commonly charge publication fees. If you're on your own, I assume you would be responsible for the cost. I have no idea how that would work.
But good luck! This is an ambitious task and you'll learn a lot either way.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: One key question to me is whether to include your institute or not.
Pro: The affiliation would help people to judge your level of professionalism and what is your usual field of research.
Con: It might be not allowed by your institute or people giving you grant money might raise an eye brown.
* Before adding your affiliation, talk to your advisor and/or institute head.
* In any case, inform them that you are publishing a paper, they should not learn this from some external person but from you directly.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: This will depend, in part, on the nature of the data you've collected. If this data was collected from people or animals and the proper ethical procedures weren't followed (including oversight by an IRB), it may be entirely impossible for someone to join this project or for a venue to publish any results. This is true even if the experiment is obviously harmless and ethical. Approval has to be received before data collection.
Even if you've been performing experiments on a computer or measuring trees outside, the professor you contact may still want to rerun data collection using their own ideas about best practices.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: <NAME>, inventor of PCR, published his hobby paper on cosmology in Nature journal during his training years.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/25
| 1,352
| 5,932
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am afraid I am not capable to do this job and I am really struggling. I feel suffocated in the whole environment. I believe his intention is good (to communicate), though it might not be specific for me but for his project certainly (important).
As I don't have the background knowledge of the project, most of the night I would stay up to do research but it took me so long time to achieve very little. The stress and work overtime strongly affect me and my partner (she have many health issues, most of the time she is ok to look after herself but she is very fragile).
We both are struggling with our own issues. Apparently my work situation definitely not ideal (for us).
I have been seriously thinking to quit. My financial is ok. So far I can't think for the future. I know it won't be good for my CV (which will make me to have more than a year gap of unemployment after my PhD if I quit this job).
I worked in research areas only in my whole life. I tried to look for *normal* job but no success. I also don't know if postdoc is suitable for me.
Wow, I don't understand how other people can say it take them 4-5 months to settle in... I feel like I got throw into a pool and need to learn to swim immediately.<issue_comment>username_1: Feeling overwhelmed when adjusting to a new project and environment is not uncommon, and it takes time to adapt and gain expertise. However, considering the stress and impact on your personal life, it's important to assess if this postdoc aligns with your long-term goals.
Remember that *a postdoc is often a steppingstone to a faculty position, providing an opportunity to work independently and demonstrate your abilities beyond your PhD advisor's influence*. Completing a postdoc in a different research area is valuable for showcasing your adaptability and ability to publish outside your comfort zone.
Discuss your concerns with your supervisor, seeking their guidance and support. They may be able to provide clarity and assistance. Seeking advice from mentors and colleagues who have faced similar challenges can also provide valuable insights.
Finally, remember that *quitting doesn't necessarily mean failure*. Prioritize your well-being and explore alternative options that better suit your needs and goals. Assess your situation carefully and make an informed decision will lead you to a more fulfilling path. Remember, it's important to prioritize your own growth and happiness.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Getting started on a postdoc in a different environment, with a different supervisor after a successful PhD can feel overwhelming and intimidating and it is certainly not uncommon to doubt yourself. I think many of us have been there. That being said, this shouldn't be so all consuming that you walk around with a knot in your stomach. That is a sign that other things are going on.
Don't give up and call it quits before you take a breath and try to break things down to see where your struggles are and try some things to improve the situation.
Clearly there's your situation at home which seems to be adding to the stresses of this new job in a new town. Try to craft some time in your life where you really are off work for real without feeling guilty for not working. Even if it's two evenings and a weekend morning or afternoon where you can be physically and mentally present with your partner 100%.
Then there's the job itself. You probably need to adjust to how your supervisor is communicating. In an ideal world they would also communicate with you in a way that works best for you, but even people who are really good at doing this may need some time to figure that out - and perhaps this is just what your supervisor is like. Can you talk to some other lab members to ask what the best approach is to communicate with him? Do you feel comfortable to tell your supervisor directly that you need to adjust to his direct way of communication? Can you ask what he thinks you need to focus on first to be successful in this project?
One way or another, you need to find a way to handle this. As long as you can hold on to the view that he has good intentions and both of your best interests in mind, that's a good point of departure and a place you can always return to. If you don't understand him, simply rephrase it at the end of a conversation: so if I can summarize then I need to do X? This is the best way to prevent misunderstandings.
Then there's you and this project. Good for you for changing topics. This can make you feel like a beginner all over again - not the best feeling in the world. Remind yourself of why you made this choice (hopefully there was a really good reason for picking this postdoc as this may be the incentive you need to keep going).
Ask yourself what you could do more or differently. I don't just mean 'work harder' but also 'work smarter' (i.e. are you putting your energy where it matters). It sounds like you are happy behind the bench, but make sure that you indeed take the time to focus on the larger theory and concepts - otherwise you may not be doing the right experiments.
Are you reading the right papers? Are you taking initiative to find out where the difficulties are that your PI things you are underestimating (maybe not the best motivational speech but useful information)? Are you asking enough questions and talking to other people who may have bits of useful information? Use the weekly meetings with your PI to ask questions, bounce ideas off of him and try to see where he sees this project going.
Hopefully in time, your confidence and mastery of the subject will grow and you can take this project your own direction. You have a PhD, so you should have the skills to master this topic as well. If not, well, then maybe this particular postdoc or an academic career is really not for you. But let's not jump to that conclusion just yet.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/25
| 1,231
| 5,355
|
<issue_start>username_0: **I am a referee for two papers by the same author: can I acknowledge in the second report (the first was almost ready when I was invited to referee the second one) my report to the first paper?**
To give more details: I am suggesting acceptance to both papers, but I think the second one reexplains too much of what is developed in the first paper (with proper citation, but to a slightly different version in preprint), and I want to be able to tell the author they should simply cite the other work and move on to the new results. Furthermore, both papers make some odd choices about presentation, and it would be easier for me to simply point to the other report than to explain again in great detail why e.g. an alternative definition of some concept would make the work much easier to follow.
This is a single-blind peer review, so I know who the author is, but they don't know who I am. I don't see how doing this could be a problem (both in terms of ethics and etiquette), as they won't be able to tell who I am just from knowing I am a referee for both papers, but it seemed wiser to me to ask, rather than assume it is perfectly OK.
**Edit:** the papers were subjected to different journals, and are being handled by different editors. So it was just by coincidence that both ended up with me as a referee; but not a big coincidence because the field is rather small...
**Edit 2:** I have accepted Buffy's answer because of the general advice on how to proceed: contact the editors, and keep in mind that the first paper may not get accepted and that the author may get confused. But, in my specific case, I am following more or less quarague's suggestions: I am writing the two reports more or less independently, and referencing the preprint when talking about the first paper on the second report, but I will not make great efforts to hide that the two reports have been written by the same person (I will not explicitly mention it, but it will be clear from the similarities between the comments on both reports).<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that you let the editor(s) know of your concerns before you put such things into the report itself. Take their advice.
Indicating you have seen the other paper might confuse the authors about the standards of the review process.
I've assumed this is for the same journal and likely the same editor. It is a little trickier if they are different journals. If the journals are different then you can ask both editors, assuming you are comfortable with that. Otherwise, I wouldn't include such things in either report. You can, of course, suggest changes.
Note that it is possible that one or the other of the papers won't be published, in spite of your recommendation.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My short advice would be to *make the reviews independent*, as far as feasible. While you say:
>
> I don't see how doing this could be a problem (both in terms of ethics and etiquette)
>
>
>
I think this is an extremely unusual situation (as you yourself acknowledge). An author who recognizes the situation might feel that *both* papers' acceptances or rejections are riding in tandem on them getting *both* papers "right", especially if they are inexperienced.
While that stress is probably not too harmful, I can't see how it would be helpful or would result in better papers, so I would lean towards "first do no harm" in this situation and avoid unnecessarily stressing out the authors.
In terms of the situational specifics:
>
> I want to be able to tell the author they should simply cite the other work and move on to the new results
>
>
>
Then you should just say that, based on the content of the preprint. If this issue arises in the final version of paper A but not the preprint, then as a reviewer I personally would just let it slide, since (1) under almost all circumstances these papers would be independently reviewed, and (2) it doesn't do significant harm to science to have two extremely closely written papers happen to repeat significant parts of each others' content.
>
> both papers make some odd choices about presentation, and it would be easier for me to simply point to the other report
>
>
>
You could just cut and paste from one report to the other. If the presentations are a problem then they're a problem in each paper independent of the other paper's content -- so just comment on the problematic presentation as if that's the one paper you've read.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I see two issues you want to address here. First, the second paper rehashes a lot of what is already written in the first paper. As the first paper is available as a preprint and referenced in the second paper this issue is not related to you also reviewing the first paper. Your review for the second paper can simply critisize that aspect.
The other issue is that you want to suggest using slightly different definitions or naming conventions. This issue is present in both papers. I think the best solution here is to just copy a version of your argument into both reviews and adjust them as needed. That way each review can completely stand on its own but an astute reader would notice they are probably written by the same person. That is fine, there is no reason to hide that.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/25
| 794
| 2,971
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing my MSc in data analytics in the UK. I am planning to include some R code outputs in it: data and model summaries generated automatically (the grey part in the below example). **Question: is the grey part a table, a figure or something else?** I already have *tables*, properly formatted and numbered (also shown in the image below); but I also have figures (charts, etc.). My undergrad degree is not from the UK and was in humanities, so I'm looking for some advice as to how to label the code outputs. Thank you very much!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mFdyF.png)<issue_comment>username_1: This is actually an intriguing question to which various answers can be given. I *personally* think it would depend on the use. If the main purpose is to give the readers numbers in a quick way, it would be a table. It looks a bit like a contingency table anyway. Chart is not really an option for me as I am using latex a lot. Figure would be used for an illustration or a graph, and that does not seem to be the case here. In a case like this, what your thesis advisor thinks is what decides what it is, anyway ;) .
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The '*code output*' would pass for either (table/figure) depending on the information being conveyed. Best bet as @Thomas-Schwarz has indicated is to seek advisor/supervisor advice.
From my Python lens, the *code output* would render like a *table* in `markdown`. The dataframe can be plotted as chart in R or Python or any other: which can then be labelled as figure.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd argue that it is not necessary to include this in that exact visual form with gray background and monospace. Just set it properly as a table and refer to the data in the table.
If the exact visuals are important and relevant, and the fact that this is a screenshot of an actual interface is important for the text, then it should be a figure and labelled appropriately.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Technically, that's a *listing*[1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21460/how-can-code-be-classified-in-a-thesisfigure-table-listing-etc), [2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/122835/should-the-listings-be-included-in-the-contents-page), [3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listing_%28computer%29).
But I'd never heard of that term before today, and I bet none of your thesis readers will have heard of it either. So the path of least resistance (in order to keep your numberings automated) is to label it a figure instead. If you're using Markdown, you could try something like:
```
```{lorem-ipsum.r}
cyberlorem cyberipsum
| dolor | sit | amet |
|-|-|-|
|consectetur| adipiscing | elit |
|sed | do | eiusmod |
```
```
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/26
| 1,192
| 4,749
|
<issue_start>username_0: After finishing a PhD, your title is either Dr or PhD. What is the correct title while still working on it? Is it MSc?
[This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40329/whats-my-professional-title-while-working-full-time-on-my-phd) asks almost the same question, but doesn't specifically ask for titles.<issue_comment>username_1: You don't really have a title, per se, other than whatever other social titles already apply to you: Mr., Ms. ...
You can add MSc following your name if you have earned that, but it isn't really a title.
But you *are* a *student*.
Once you pass certain milestones, you might be called something like a *degree candidate* but that isn't a title. Titles (other than hereditary titles) require earning some achievement that you haven't yet earned.
Some people might want to use "Master" after earning a MSc, but that is also often used for, say, five year old boys. Probably not what you are after.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In Poland, they use ***X, Ph.D.*** or ***MSc X*** while being a student, and ***Dr. X*** when they obtain their degree.
However, this is not consistent throughout all universities in Poland.
I write ***X, Ph.D. Candidate*** and I think this is the proper way to describe my situation.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: To add to the (very good) previous answers, I think it is also important to mention that the way PhD students are considered is also country dependent.
In the US, people working towards a PhD degree are mostly considered as students. They are often referred to as "PhD candidates" or "grad students" (depending on their level of advancement). The curriculum is longer (and can be started without a prior Master degree, which is usually not the case in European countries), and requires to take several classes and exams. The stipend is usually not fantastic, while the graduation ceremony is quite a big deal. Briefly, working towards a PhD in the US can be compared to getting any other academic diploma.
In Europe, people working towards a PhD degree are mostly considered as professional researchers. For instance, in France, it is common to refer to a PhD student as "scientist" or "researcher" (even though they are students registered at a higher education institution). It is not always required to take classes - and if it is, the requirement is often to simply validate a few credits once for all. The graduation process is pretty casual, if existent at all. If I were to summarize my PhD in Switzerland: I have been working in a lab doing science for some time, and at the end they gave me a piece of paper saying that I was now legally allowed to add the letters "PhD" in front of my name on my mailbox and my driving license.
I am less knowledgeable about this process in other continents. And these are only general trends, as sharp country-specific differences may exist.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: The UK seems closer to the US than to "Europe" in these matters.
Here your title normally goes in front of your name, and does not change based on receipt of a masters degree, whether or not you subsequently start a PhD. You can start using the title Dr after completing a PhD, but many people don't use it, or only use it in a relevant professional context. You technically can put letters after your name following the award of any degree (including bachelors) and various other degree-like achievements, but this is never actually done in everyday life. A case where it would be done is if someone in medical, legal or related professions had a name-plate outside their place of work of the form "<NAME> BVSc MRCVS" to demonstrate their qualifications.
Historically, however, there was a potential change in title. If Mr <NAME> was awarded a masters degree, he could then be styled "Paul Jones, Esq.". Note that by "historically" I mean over 100 years ago, so at the time only men were allowed to get degrees. The title Esq. (for Esquire) is not really used any more and most people aren't aware that it signifies anything in particular, except that the user is somewhat pretentious. Maybe the best known recent usage is [<NAME>, Esq.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Ted), who does not have a masters degree.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Within the Humanities in the United States, it's common to say "doctoral student" when enrolled in a PhD program, but if one has not yet advanced to candidacy. After passing qualifying exams, submitting an approved dissertation proposal, and/or whatever paperwork is required by one's university to be ABD ("All But Degree"), then one can say that they are a "doctoral candidate."
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/26
| 1,334
| 5,560
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am Ph.D. student in mathematics. One of my articles has been accepted by a journal. The editor asked me to remove the unnecessary macros before sending the latex file to the journal.
What do they mean by macros?
Do I need to change the preamble of the latex editor? Or something else.
For example, I have used the command `\enquote{}` to add inverted commas to highlight some specific words or lines. Is this considered a macro ?
Whenever I write some large mathematics expressions, I use separate lines and either `$$ $$` or `\begin{align*} \end{align*}` or simply `\begin{align} \end{align}` when I need an equation number.
I am not sure what is treated as a macro. About a year ago, I got the same instructions from a journal, and somehow I managed that time, but I cannot recall what exactly I did to remove macros. Maybe I removed some commands like `\textit{}` or `\textbf{}` etc. But I can not recall properly.
The current paper will be my second publication.
I hope some math experts will guide me regarding macros.<issue_comment>username_1: Presumably part of what they are asking you to do is to remove macros from the preamble that are not used in the paper. It might also mean that if you defined your own command \ABC as an abbreviation for \mathbf{A+B^{C}}, you should actually use Ctrl+R to replace \ABC by \mathbf{A+B^{C}} throughout the paper.
It *certainly doesn't* mean that you should remove normal commands which actually do some work like \textit or \enquote from your manuscript.
In any case, this probably isn't something that you can really "do wrong". It's not like they will return the manuscript to you until it complies with some mystery list of requirements which you need to guess on your own. It's just a matter of making work easier for the production team by not having them spend too much time on decyphering your cryptic commands.
Incidentally, note that the syntax $$...$$ is [deprecated](https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would interpret "macros" as any user-defined commands, i.e. things that appear in your preamble using `\newcommand`, `\renewcommand`, `\providecommand` or `\def`. (You should probably not be using the last at all.)
It is very common to see people define macros that are never used, or even define two macros that do the same thing and use both. Sometimes this is because they have a preamble that they just copy from paper to paper, which accumulates detritus. Probably that is all they want you to get rid of.
However, macros can be a headache for journals because they may clash with (have the same name as) macros they define as part of their formatting. This will cause different problems depending on how you defined yours: `\newcommand` will fail to compile, `\renewcommand` will redefine to your meaning, causing their uses to have unexpected behaviour, and `\providecommand` will keep their meaning, perhaps causing your uses to have unexpected behaviour. (This is why you should use `\newcommand` unless there is a very good reason not to.)
A good way to avoid clashes is to avoid defining macros with very short names.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the other two answers, but I wanted to add that this is a sufficiently common problem that there is actually a nice tool made to deal with it: [the `de-macro` package](https://ctan.org/tex-archive/support/de-macro). It comes with TeX Live, for example.
I always run this as part of my submission process, because some journals I've published in (Physical Review) don't mention that they fail to deal with macros properly, they just send you back proofs that are all screwed up, and you have to search through carefully to find every single place they screwed up.
Note that I think it doesn't work with `\def`, so for this reason among many others, @EspeciallyLime had it right when saying you shouldn't use `\def`.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As explained by username_2 and others, "macros" here refers to user-defined LateX commands, defined with `\newcommand` etc. Some people use them for convenience, to avoid repetitive typing or to make it easier to change something in one place and have it reflected throughout the file.
But if you don't know what a macro is, then most likely you haven't defined any (i.e. you never used `\newcommand` or the like in your file). So you may be confused as to why the editor gave this instruction. In fact, editors often have a standard set of instructions that they send to every author, regardless of what is in the manuscript. If your file doesn't define any macros, then this instruction just doesn't apply to you, and so you can ignore it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: To be blunt, if
* the editor "asked you" as part of a long, standard form email;
* the journal in question is published by one of the major for-profit publishers such as Springer or Elsevier; and
* you did not do anything unusual or especially complicated in your TeX file,
then I would simply ignore the request and send your LaTeX file to the publisher. If they complain, then you can ask what they mean.
As <NAME> says in his answer, "it's just a matter of making work easier for the production team." The publishing industry makes considerable profits selling our own research back to us. Although opinions may differ, my personal belief is that we do not have an obligation to do extra work ourselves to make their work easier.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/26
| 543
| 2,348
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing a teaching statement for a cs/mathematics teaching position. I start the statement with a section "Personal Background" in which I simply say that both my parents and brothers are involved in teaching in one way or another and that makes me encourage different students to find their own learning methodologies.
The idea I wanted to convey was that I believe that no matter the specialization, a student can reach as far as they wish if they use the right methodology. However, a colleague reviewed the statement and mentioned that part was weird to him.
Question: is it ok to give personal background such as this in a teaching statement?<issue_comment>username_1: While, in general, personal experience is fine, even good, I don't think the example you give will help you. It is irrelevant to your own motivation.
And, I think your statement about "finding their own learning methodologies" is actually harmful. My experience (30 plus years) is that students often don't know how to learn and need to be taught how to do it. Too many think that memorization is the key. Many think that cramming for exams is somehow related to "learning". In fact, you job, beyond the technical is to help them find the learning path.
I've had a lot of students that thought they'd learned something simply by listening to my lectures without taking notes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As with the already-existing good answer, and comments: the question seems to be conflating two things... first, the questioner's personal context, in which teaching is a very honorable, important thing to do with one's life. To mention that is harmless, and possibly a small plus. But it seems to me a non-sequitur to connect this with "encouraging ... students to find their own learning methodologies"... especially as most students are not really competent to make decisions about that. Conceivably re-directing that to something about respecting possible varying "learning styles" ... ?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Perhaps OK. If you do include it put it at the end not at the beginning, and don't try to connect it to your philosophy or experience.
I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of "teaching is in my blood" comment at the end of a teaching statement, though I don't think it would sway me much.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/27
| 2,409
| 9,777
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm at the end of my second year in a top chemistry Ph.D. program in the US. Unfortunately, I've been struggling a lot with depression and low energy: I'm having a lot of personal issues, no support system, barely any family/friends, my home country is at war, and to make things even worse, I picked a terrible project. I’ve even started seeing a therapist even though normally, I’d never do something like that. I feel like my mental struggles contributed to this situation…
Anyway, I've been working on this project for 2 years, and almost all the results I have are either negative or not quite what we wanted. Frankly, I think my PI is chasing research goals that are not feasible and that this project is a fool’s errand, which is basically what my candidacy committee said too.
My PI talked with me recently and said that he doesn't see a path forward and that not all people are meant to get a Ph.D. He only casually talked to me about the things he wanted me to improve before, but he never communicated it was THAT serious. I was trying to fix the things he wanted me to fix, but with everything that was going on, it was problematic. It came as a shock also because he said that he knows this project is hard, that I’d been working hard, and that my research progress is fine. The issue is not my research progress though, but rather a combination of other things - both minor and not. For instance, I spilled a liter of solvent once, and I forgot about a one-on-one meeting once or twice over these 2 years (because I was focused on the labwork or writing something up). But his major concern apparently, is how I prepared my research prospectus (for the qualifying exam) and some of the internal research presentations (each member of his research group prepares a research presentation every couple months). With how I’ve been feeling and with how the project is going, I didn’t have enough energy to streamline them. So my last internal presentation for the group meeting was pretty bad (although in my mind, 0 results is 0 results regardless of how nice my presentation looks). And my prospectus…Well, I had to redo it. This is my 2nd time fixing it. I had to retake my candidacy exam and got a conditional pass after the second attempt. The committee didn’t like the project, and here, I 100% agree with them. They said I have a stellar GPA and told me I’m super smart and all, but none of that matters here since this doesn’t help. I should submit the prospectus (proposal basically) this week, but I’m kicked out of the group regardless.
What now? If they do pass me, I can try to find another lab at this university, but should I? And if I have to apply to another Ph.D. program, it creates visa issues: I can’t go back to my home country while applying. Any advice?
I apologize if this is incoherent: I’m still kinda shell-shocked.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm sorry to hear that you're going through such a challenging time. Dealing with depression, personal issues, and a difficult project can harm your overall well-being and academic performance.
Here are some suggestions to help you navigate your next steps:
1. **Openly communicate with your PI**: Have a sincere conversation with your PI about your situation, including your mental health struggles and the feedback you received from the candidacy committee. Discuss the possibility of continuing in the lab or potential alternative projects or arrangements.
2. **Explore other options within the university:** If continuing in your current lab is not feasible, consider exploring other research groups within your university. Reach out to other PIs and inquire about available positions to continue your PhD within the same institution.
3. **Consider transferring to another institution:** If you feel that starting fresh in a different institution or different PhD program would make sense, you can explore the possibility of transferring to another institution. (about the visa implications seek guidance from your university's international student office.)
4. **Consider transferring to a masters program** in the same institution if it is possible. Some universities allow this. After completeing the MS, you can get an MS and look for a new position either in acdemia or industry.
5. **Reflect on your goals and priorities:** Think about your long-term goals and aspirations. See if completing a PhD is still aligned with your interests and career plans. This self-reflection will help you make informed decisions about your future path.
Finally, **note that nearly half of PhD students do not graduate**, see for example these links: [link1](https://www.statisticssolutions.com/almost-50-of-all-doctoral-students-dont-graduate/#:%7E:text=The%20Council%20of%20Graduate%20Schools,the%20PhD%20completion%20and%20attrition.), [link2](https://ahappyphd.org/posts/drop-out-phd/#:%7E:text=In%20the%20research%20literature%20about,attrition%20rate%20is%20mentioned%201.), and [link3](https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-PhD-students-drop-out-before-finishing). So, it is not end of the world to drop out of a PhD program, and **your health and well-being is much more important than getting a PhD degree**.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A quick chipping in @username_1 excellent suggestions
>
> although in my mind, 0 results is 0 results regardless of how nice my presentation looks
>
>
>
Even when (anticipated) results are *zero*/negative, being able to and actually explaining the result (from an outcome perspective) is important/insightful in research.
Perhaps, this might not apply to some field/discipline.
Wishing you the best on your rediscovering process. #KeepCalmAndReengage
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Sorry to hear about your situation but it's not uncommon. My suggestion is that you should consider moving to another phd program preferably in another institution rather than in the same university. You might also want to consider moving to another perhaps related project. Good luck!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, a lot of professors are horrible bosses. The combination of high expectations, little accountability, and no real business or management training can make a deadly combination. I would suggest a fresh start at an R2 they are often a little more laid back. If I was doing it over again I would have left in a similar fashion. You still get your masters degree. I think the visa is a smaller issue than you think. Find a university and a professor that aligns with your interests and talk to them. The university may be able to FastTrack the visa. Secondly, use the opportunity to talk to the professors students and ask how many alumni from their group still communicate. Asking an alumni about their advisor you will get the most truthful answers. I think a fresh start would do you well and put this behind you even though it feels like you might have wasted two years it is better than four and find an advisor that will pour into you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: international PhD student here.
I was in a similar situation (top tier university, bogus R01, and no equipment/account frozen for months because the PI of the grant moved twice in 2 years). I was working odd projects on the side just to maintain my salary and did not have the time to prepare for the qualifying exam. I wanted out so badly, that I failed the second attempt on purpose.
Long story short: I made sure I had enough credits to get a Master, and immediately applied for OPT. Worked for 1 year and then started a PhD in a different institution.
Then the pandemic hit, my new PI took the chance to get a promotion in a different institution, and I was stuck again, forced to TA all-year round just to have a salary. As international, we can't really apply for fellowships, so I started writing grants for a professor that agreed to put his name on them. I wrote 5 grants in 18 months, submitted 3, and won 2.
The situation was über-stressful because I found problems in my new immigration docs that I could not fix on my own, and I was working all the time for a meager stipend, giving my ideas to other people. My wife decided I was a failure and filed for divorce.
However, now that I do the research that I care about, passing the qualifying exam was no sweat. And I used my experience to get a grant writing position. This is way easier that being a researcher, I can do it from home, and the hourly income is about 3.5x what I get as a PhD. And I will likely maintain the position after graduation.
All to say: put in prospective, leaving the first PhD program was a good thing. Don't put up with a toxic environment, especially if it is for a project you don't believe in.
And having a support system is overrated, you never know how friends and family react under stress. Some of them, despite being pleasant people in good times, will gladly kick you while you are on the ground.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: To be honest, PhD (committees) have multiple roles. One of them is to grade your PhD, when it is done, but on more and more university they are taking even more proactive role to advise the students and this way protect them if **their supervisor is incompetent**. The committee, as I understand, clearly said that the research path is not viable and your supervisor at least should heed this warning and assign you to something else. My advice is to leave the lab and go somewhere else within the rights your visa gives you, because that is extremely bad supervision, if he encouraged you to follow the research goals that are widely considered (obviously by the committee) to be unrealistic. You have no future in that lab and.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/27
| 378
| 1,578
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international PhD student in Taiwan. I am scheduled to have my oral defense next month. I don't see any foreseeable problem that might happen during that time, but I still make sure I'm prepared. While trying to manage the stress of the coming oral defense, I'm also thinking about the future. After the oral defense, I will stay for one year before leaving the country. I want to apply for postdocs or research positions in Canada, specifically in Calgary. Is it too soon to contact PI's about a position?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is too soon to contact PI for positions that will be open in ~13 months for now.
However, it is not too soon to getting in touch with potential hosts (as a postdoc, what you define PIs can be your host and you can be the PI) to get accostumed to possible source of funding.
Since you are looking for a specific place, it will be much easier to bring there your "own" funds (i.e. getting a project of your own funded) rather than getting a postdoc position there.
Disclaimer: much easier means still "very hard".
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: My PI used to say that the deadline to do anything in academia is "yesterday". Although a PI may not know for sure whether they will have funding or open positions in 13 months, it is never too early to start expressing your interest for their lab and to start discussing research topic and collaborations. The worst they can answer is "please contact me again later". And that would leave you plenty of time to look for your own funding.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/27
| 1,557
| 6,054
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently in my third year, 5 semesters over, of my MS programme at a top Indian institute. MS is a research based Master's programme in engineering.
Being a research based curriculum, there is no fixed time and I have seen people do it in 4 years also but the average is 3 years. Also there is no fixed criteria of what defines ``satisfactory work'' to graduate.
My advisor is saying my work of 2.5 years is still not publishable and added that a lot more work has to be done yet.
I know my work is not a very novel work, unlike all the lab-mates around me, but for the current work I had to put a lot of efforts and overcoming my mental barriers. I started taking therapy few months back to make sure I keep working.
After my advisor's comment, which happened for the first time a few weeks back, my world is now upside down. I do not know what to do, and he keeps telling me to do things in a deadline which I don't think I can do. I am feeling like sh\*t as my whole work till now has been just a ``colouring book'', to quote him.
I have been talking to my friends about my situation, they are saying just keep pushing; but do not know if I have the ability to push or even work anymore. I am coming to lab daily, dragging myself out of my dorm, and wasting a lot of time. I haven't told my parents yet, because they think I will graduate this December with a job in hand, FYI Indian institutes have a concept of campus placements. But the reality is I do not know when I will graduate, or even if I will graduate! I do not know if I will get a descent job if I quit.
I don't know what to do. Should I quit? Even if I quit, will I get a job? My self-image at this time is at all-time low because I actually wanted to do research and now I am hating it to my gut.
Can someone suggest a way out please?
*Apologies for the long post, I had to vent it out.*<issue_comment>username_1: Can you get a job? Well, do you have the skills required?
Go to your local jobs portal (or your university's career portal if they have one), and see what jobs are available that you think you might be interested in. Read the job descriptions, see what they ask for. Here's an [example](https://in.indeed.com/jobs?q=engineering&l=&from=searchOnHP&vjk=013b177ac2d0d95a) I got from a quick search.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3AyNX.png)
Do you have these things? If yes - then sure you can get a job. If no - then no, you won't get this job. But you might be able to get another job. You won't know until you search.
By the way, there's nothing stopping you from applying for a job *before* you quite your MS.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no shame in quitting a shitty MS program, or a bad relationship with an advisor. There's something to be said about persevering, but what they don't tell you is that persevering is only good up to a point, and that the "always persevere" mantra is usually accompanied by the [sunken cost fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost). And you've hit the nail on the head with the statement
>
> Also there is no fixed criteria of what defines ``satisfactory work'' to graduate.
>
>
>
One of the most frustrating parts of doing a research-based MS or PhD is the lack of consistent criteria for what constitutes enough work. This works across programs, but you often also find inconsistent criteria among advisors at the same program. For example, colleague of mine from my undergrad years decided to do an MS at the same university, since her experience there was good. She spent 7 years on the MS, every year being told to do "just one more experiment". In retrospect, this was unfair, and I consider her thesis to be a lot better than PhD theses I later saw accepted at the R1 institution where I did my PhD. Again, this is all in retrospect, but she could have quit her MS degree and done a PhD instead at a better institution.
I don't know what will please your parents, but pleasing parents is rarely a good criterion for deciding what to do with your life.
And yes, you can certainly get a job without an MS degree. Most people in the world don't have an MS degree.Your criteria for "success" will vary, but to take a common criterion for success, money: many of my friends back from when I was an undergrad never went higher than the bachelor's degree, and they all make more money than I do with my PhD. Two of them come to mind, one is an electrical engineer, the other a civil engineer. So there's definitely a market for engineers without MS degrees (caveat: this is in the US; the market for engineers in India will be different, of course.)
Before you quit, however, speak with your advisor and tell them about your frustration with the moving target nature of finishing your current degree. If they are reasonable, they might even be willing to put in writing what you need to do to finish, and with that you can make a reasonable plan to finish. But again, if they keep yanking your chain with "one more experiment" BS, it's time to cut your losses.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I can answer it from the Indian perspective. I have seen some of my friends stuck in similar situations during my Ph.D. I would recommend that you don't quit yet. How easy it would be for you to get a job depends on which branch you are in. If you are in CS/EC/EE, I think it should be pretty easy. If not, I'd suggest you start preparing for placements. Most companies that come for placements don't care about what research you have done as long you can perform the job that they hire you for. During our time, most companies wanted software developers or data analysts. So, preparing for those roles will maximize your chance of success.
Once you have a job, you will be in a better position to negotiate with your supervisor. Of course, there is no guarantee that they will let you graduate even if you get a job, but you will be in a better position to push. All the best.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/27
| 802
| 3,434
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to understand the difference between Unit Cost and Salary.
I receive a MSC Fellowship and the different types of allowance on the surface appear like a good salary. All numbers combined they should add up to 66-76k per year. However, this is nowhere near what I actually receive as my salary (which is much lower ~30%).
There are two questions here:
1. The discrepancy between unit cost and salary has been explained to me comes from social security contributions – including health insurance, accident insurance and severance pay. However I still pay all of these things from my low salary? It feels like I am paying this cost twice.
2. I understood that the mobility allowance will be paid in full to me. Again More than 30% have already been deducted before tax. Where does that money go?
What can you ACTUALLY expect as a gross salary from the MSC? Without hidden fees and shell game tricks?<issue_comment>username_1: I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice.
It is impossible to answer your question exactly without looking at the documents you refer to and also precise laws in your country.
However, generally speaking, funding documents explain how much money the funding body gives to the University. The University spends the money as follows:
1. It pays your salary
2. It pays the employers (theirs) contribution to taxes, social security, etc. Depending on your country and salary, this can be quite high (~30% of salary). I am not sure if this applies to Italy.
3. It may also keep some money as "overheads", to cover the costs of maintaining buildings, labs, etc. Depending on your University, this can be quite high (for example in the UK, ~50%+ of all funding goes to the University)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It looks like you've run into a common surprise for first-time grant holders. In many countries employers have to pay a significant contribution to pension funds, social security, national insurance, or similar programs, based on employee salary. On a normal salary statement you don't usually see this, since by convention employee salary is specified net of these employer contributions.
However, when universities fund research, these contributions are also claimed as part of the grant budget. Different funders specify that in different ways.
In the case of MSC fellowships, a fixed total gross employment cost is specified inclusive of both employee and employer taxes. The university then takes the employer contributions (pensions, national insurance) off that total. This reduced amount is then paid to the funding recipient as their salary, who then pays their personal taxes out of it. That does look like you're personally being taxed twice, but it is two distinct taxes, one of which is usually hidden from the employee.
I am not Italian so cannot comment for sure, but a quick Google suggests this is what's happening here - Italian employer tax contributions look to be 30-35% of gross salary, in the ballpark of the reduction you're seeing. So, although it's disappointing, that sounds like a reasonable deduction, and not some trickery by the university.
(Note: This is not the same thing as 'overheads' which go into other university funds and which can be used for purposes outside your direct salary costs. That's a separate heading for MSC fellowships, and none of your salary should be going towards that.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/27
| 707
| 2,884
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to pursue computational biophysics for PhD but I know for sure that the path of academia being a professor is NOT for me. I love modelling and simulating biological systems (even human brains are very interesting). So what are the possible jobs for me?<issue_comment>username_1: Within academia, per se, there are some top schools that have "Research Professor" positions that minimize teaching, if that is your concern. The teaching that is done is mostly guiding doctoral students.
But these positions are few and mostly open only to the very top candidates, I'll guess. Perhaps that is you, or not.
But a number of research labs, say in the pharmaceutical industry, have "academic-like" atmospheres. I know people in my own field (CS) that hold such positions at large multi-national corporations. Their environment is a lot like academia, but only focused on research. We go to the same conferences, and such, and read one-another's papers. Collaboration is also there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This question would be easier to answer if we knew the country in which you reside or in which you wish to get an academic job. In some parts of the world, a professor is someone who teaches, so there your question would be interpreted as "can I get a job in academia without having to teach?" In other countries there is a strict hierarchy of who is called what, eg in Germany both Universitätsprofessor and Lehrprofessor have the word "professor" in them, but they are distinctly different jobs in terms of their daily work schedule. In the US, it's a word salad of Permanent/Temp Assistant/Associate Full-Time/Part-Time Adjunct/Visiting/Tenure-Track/Non-Tenure-Track Research/Teaching, etc., so you end up with people working under titles such as Visiting Assistant Research Professor (ie a semi-permanent, non-tenure track, non-teaching, soft money position.) So, if you don't like teaching, there are research-only positions. If you don't like writing grants, there are teaching-only positions. And everything in between.
If you are looking for a position that has all of the benefits of academia, e.g. job stability (for those tenured), intellectual challenges, freedom of choosing your research topic etc., but does not include the usual burdens of teaching (prep, grading), grant writing and administration, and administrative work, well that's true for you and me buddy, and for every other researcher out there. Those jobs don't exist in the universe I've inhabited so far.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: University research hospitals could be a good place for your work. Computational biologists can work with physicians and their high-throughput data. Often comes with a secondary appointment as a faculty member at the affiliated university. The teaching is maybe a quarterly workshop for residents.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/27
| 821
| 3,252
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have an ESRC scholarship for my current PhD, but my relationship with my supervisor has broken down and I can't make progress. If I leave this PhD, will that harm my chances of getting a different PhD or funding?<issue_comment>username_1: I am also in the UK looking to see what my options are about starting a new PhD. I am STFC funded, but am (but more was) curious about ESRC work.I emailed ESRC about this and got this response:
>
> ... For more information about our DTPs and CDTs visit: <https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/career-and-skills-development/funding-for-postgraduate-training/>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.ukri.org/publications/esrc-postgraduate-funding-guide/>
>
>
>
>
> Just to add a final point, in addition to the guidance my colleague highlighted previously, please note that as per p10-11 of the Postgraduate Funding Guide: *Students who have already received government funding for Master’s-level or PhD-level training may apply for further funding but the total length of funding available plus previous government funding will not normally exceed four years for full-time study (or the part-time equivalent).*
>
>
>
They also said this earlier in the email chain:
>
> In particular, you should be aware that ESRC ‘does not expect its
> funding to be used for students who have already completed a
> substantial proportion of a PhD… Studentships should not normally be
> awarded to students who have already had a period of full-time
> postgraduate training at the same or higher level, or employment that
> is the equivalent of such training, unless support for them would
> clearly represent a good investment of public funds… taking into
> account the individual circumstances and other applicants for the
> limited number of ESRC awards. (p. 11)’ In other words, a student who
> had already received UKRI studentship funding would have to make a
> highly persuasive case that further support was justifiable and
> represented good value. I’m only able to give you highly generic
> advice. You might find it helpful to discuss your situation with
> student services in your institution or other sources of postgraduate
> support.
>
>
>
At least within science, I am getting a vague impression that if I finish my current PhD I can apply for another. It's not ideal, I'd prefer to simply switch, but it may mean I get a second chance at being able to aim for something I want.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you want to switch to another CDT and similar PhD programs see excellent answer by @username_1.
Otherwise, I don't see a strong relevance to the organization that funds your PhD here (in this case ERSC). What important is your track record and CV. If you drop out from a PhD program and then apply to another one without a good explanation ("falling out with my supervisor" is probably the least desirable explanation to potential supervisors), then this may be flagged by the PhD admission committees and potential supervisors.
On the other hand, this is not saying it is will be impossible to get a new PhD post, assuming either the admission committee does not know about your previous PhD program or you have a good explanation for dropping out.
Upvotes: 0
|