date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2023/06/27
| 833
| 3,589
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the indexing section of a Mathematics journal, out of several indexing (e.g., Scopus, MathSciNet etc), it is mentioned that the journal is reviewed by AMS Mathematical Reviews.
What does mean it ?
Google says Mathematical Reviews itself a journal published by AMS, but I am not sure it is a journal.
But in any case what does mean a particular is reviewed by AMS Mathematical Reviews ?
Is it a good criteria for a journal?
Any information please...<issue_comment>username_1: Math Reviews was a paper journal back in the day, but at some point it transitioned to being online-only. Mathscinet is the web interface to search Math Reviews, and the brief reviews of papers it gives you are exactly the content of Math Reviews.
The goal of Math Reviews is to index the entire mathematical literature, so being indexed there is not really a meaningful signal as to how good a given journal is.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Mathematical Reviews is now better known as [MathSciNet](https://mathscinet.ams.org). It's a subcription-based online database of mathematics research papers and books, produced by the American Mathematical Society. Before the online era, it existed as a paper periodical called Mathematical Reviews that was sent out to libraries and subscribers, but it was never really a "journal"; it only included metadata and not original articles.
An entry in the MathSciNet database contains the bibliographic information for the book or article. For selected items, there may also be a *review*: a summary of the article written by an independent expert who was recruited by the MathSciNet editors. Despite the name, the "review" doesn't usually *evaluate* the paper as "good" or "bad" but instead summarizes the contents in the reviewer's own words, sometimes including more background information, context, sources, etc. If there is no review (e.g. the paper wasn't selected for a review, or a reviewer couldn't be found, or the reviewer decided that they had nothing to say) then the database entry includes the article's original abstract instead.
When a journal is **indexed** by MathSciNet, it means that articles published in that journal are entered into the database. Usually this is *cover-to-cover*, i.e. including all articles in the journal, but in some cases it could be more selective. MathSciNet has pretty broad coverage and will generally index any journal that seems to be of interest to the community, so being indexed by MathSciNet is a pretty low bar. If a journal is *not* indexed, it's likely either very new, very obscure, or of such low quality that the MathSciNet editors don't think it is of any significant interest at all.
I don't think it's accurate to speak of a journal being **reviewed**, since as I understand it, the decision to seek a review is per-article. Even in top journals, not all articles receive reviews (though it's not necessarily clear whether the editors tried to solicit one). Still, presumably papers in strong journals are more likely to be reviewed, as this is some indication that the paper is interesting. In obscure or lower-quality journals, it could happen that none of the articles are reviewed.
So in short, if the publishers say their journal is "reviewed" by Mathematical Reviews, they probably just mean that it is indexed, and that at least some of the papers receive reviews. I would take this as a signal that the journal is probably not complete garbage, but I wouldn't read into it much more than that. As I said, it is a very low bar.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/06/27
| 1,171
| 4,531
|
<issue_start>username_0: The story starts on April 2, when I found a critical mistake in a semi-famous recent applied math paper with 100 citations. I admire the paper and I find a very simple counterexample that high-schoolers may understand in 10 minutes. I contacted the original author, who is an editor of a top journal. He arranged a meeting with me on June 1.
On June 1, we finally met and I informally invited him to be a co-author to show my goodwill. He did not say yes or no. He was not 100% convinced. To be specific, he did not claim that my counterexample is wrong, but he also believe that his original 25-pages proof is flawless. He wants to know which step of his proof is wrong. He asked for more time.
On June 21, he said he is busy with work and will get back to me in two months.
My colleague says that he is kind of "bullying" me because I am a no name. However my initial feeling is that he is a kind person.
My concern is, since his paper is influential and many other researchers are working based on it, my correction to their paper will save our society tons of money and scarce resources.
What do I need to do?
Here is my plan: I will try to be as transparent as possible, stating my concern:
>
> Dear Prof. X, I admire your abilities and your time invested. I understand that you have other commitments and I will happily wait for a two months.
>
>
> My only concern is, since this paper is influential and many other researchers are working based on it, the correction will save our society tons of money and scarce resources. If this is reasonable, I am obliged to post the correction as a service to our profession as soon as possible.
>
>
> So, my current plan is to fully respect your time frame without delaying the publishing of my paper. If, after two months, you find my manuscript is good with a minor revision and you are willing to endorse my points, then I'd formally invite you to coauthor the paper. If you find my manuscript not good enough, I'd still fully respect your words and accept the fact that I might have to work alone.
>
>
>
Is my letter professional and how do I improve my professionalism in difficult situations?
---<issue_comment>username_1: They already gave you a hearing and were not convinced. So just write a letter saying that you plan to submit your paper within the next month unless you hear from them.
Beware that these statements make you look like a crank:
>
> My only concern is, since this paper is influential and many other researchers are working based on it, my correction will save our society tons of money and scarce resources. If this is reasonable, I am obliged to post the correction for our society as soon as possible.
>
>
>
and
>
> I admire the paper and I find a very simple counterexample that high-schoolers may understand in 10 min.
>
>
>
If I were to receive an email with those statements, I would probably ignore it. That does not mean that you are wrong. But the only way to know is to submit it for publication and see if the reviewers agree with you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Here is another option. You can send a note to the editor of the journal in which the paper was published. Once the editor of the journal is convinced, they would require either update of the paper or attach your updates with the paper. Push coming from the journal editor will carry much more weight and can expedite the process.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You've already met and discussed the topic, you've already given the offer to co-author, all there's left to do is give them a heads up about the new timeframe
>
> Dear Prof. X,
>
>
> I'm XYZ, we met early June to discuss my input on Your paper xyz,
> specifically, my suggested correction for such-n-such.
>
>
> Currently, my planned timeframe is to publish it between date-n-date,
> let me know by then if you have any input on the manuscript or anything else on the matter.
>
>
> Thank you for Your time and it was a great pleasure meeting You *(can add more niceties here if you're inclined to do so)*
>
>
>
That's the quick and succinct communication I would be happy to have between two academics. Obviously, I don't know the specific culture you're navigating and if this gives you a gut reaction of being much too informal and straight to the point - absolutely follow your gut. I'm just here to provide a different sample for your consideration to help you find something you're comfortable with.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/27
| 1,389
| 6,076
|
<issue_start>username_0: I won a grant that I wrote myself, but it was awarded under my PI's name due to the rules that prohibited including my own name. Nevertheless, I was thrilled about it as it is highly beneficial for my future career and aligns with my current and future research goals. I acknowledge that without my PI's CV and expertise, I would not have been able to secure the grant, so I am grateful for their contribution.
Currently, I am working on another topic and we are planning to hire a postdoc to conduct experiments related to the grant idea. I am pleased about this because even though I conceived the idea and won the grant, I would prefer to supervise someone else since I am not an expert in this particular field.
Furthermore, in addition to hiring the postdoc, my PI has also proposed that another potential postdoc write their individual fellowship based on my grant idea. My PI has assured me that I would be fully involved in this process, which could lead to more experiments being conducted and the establishment of a larger research group dedicated to this topic. Consequently, we may have two individuals working on this idea, with both myself and my PI serving as supervisors and co-authors for the potential publications.
Although I understand the benefits of this approach, I can't help but feel disappointed as it seems like I might be losing ownership of my research agenda. If this person were to win the individual fellowship, they would be building upon my idea without my name being associated with it.
Fortunately, my PI has assured me that they will not proceed with this plan if I disagree, which shows their understanding and consideration. I am uncertain about whether my concerns are justified. Should I allow this person to write their individual fellowship based on my idea?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I would prefer to supervise someone else since I am not an expert in
> this particular field.
>
>
>
in combination with:
>
> the establishment of a larger research group dedicated to this topic.
> Consequently, we may have two individuals working on this idea, with
> both myself and my PI serving as supervisors and co-authors for the
> potential publications.
>
>
>
Makes your plan (becoming a co-supervisor in a larger research group dedicated to this topic) pure wishful thinking. Co-authots, maybe, but you admit you are not an expert in the field, so how could you contribute? The possibility/opportunity for non-expert to contribute in a certain publication are very scarce, and generally this possibility/opportunity is reserved for PhD students, because they are becoming the expert in that field.
You PI will probably just have you as long as your contract lasts, they will be thankful for your contributionx, they will provide reference letters and hopefully back your cliam that you won a certain grant ... and that's it. Pragmatically, it is extremely unlikely you will be considered for any role in a new research group, unless you won a big grant (for example the European ERC) that provides directly to you the funds to start the new group...
Hurry up with publishing "something" related to this idea, so the future grant winner can give you the best and the most appropriate acknowledgement: citing you with reference to a peer reviewed paper.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: To offer a different perspective -- that of the person who manages the money of PIs -- from our perspective, the entire point of the postdoc position is to help the PI write grants. We encourage faculty to *require* postdocs to help write their grants. It is also the postdoc's job to help mentor the junior lab members. This helps free up time for the PI to do other things, like grant-writing.
As you can imagine, grant-writing is very time consuming, and some have to have a large number of applications per year (~20) in order to fund their lab. Others who do fewer submissions per year (1-2) stake their entire lab's funding on an annual review process. If you are interested in becoming a PI yourself, this is a basic, essential skill that most junior faculty struggle with for years. Getting practice now is the smartest route you can take without the full burden of the administrative pieces -- which by the way, are heavier than folks realize. Try reading through 300 pages of rules for a federal application and another set of rules for the administration of the award, and you will understand that it's a lot more responsibility than just writing the science portion. Sponsors turn down great science over dirty administrative components all the time. We call this a "return without review." If your PI is giving you this experience now, take the experience and be grateful. Some PIs are principled about not involving their postdocs in the process, and they show up as junior faculty completely clueless on how to run a lab.
If you want to be successful in academia and the grant-writing process overall, contribute without thought of getting credit. My most successful PIs are the ones who collaborate with everyone and do not worry about getting credit. They are the most sought after in grant-applications and often have to turn away potential collaborators. Learn to be a good academic citizen first, and the opportunities will come. Single-PI grant submissions are mostly a thing of the past. Few areas still support this, and usually the funding is very small (~$100k total costs/year at NSF).
For what it's worth, I learned this lesson from the CS community--unlike other science communities that care deeply about earning royalties, the CS community believes in open source and sharing freely. One cannot deny the surprising power of giving things away.
If you are interested in getting your own grant, check your institution's rules on PI rights. Some offer them to postdocs depending on the conditions. E.g., there is an entire series of early career awards from NIH (K awards) and formal postdoc fellowships from NSF and NIH. Show your prowess by funding yourself.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/27
| 951
| 4,136
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm from a social scientific field, so pre-prints are just becoming more and more "normal." Therefore, I'm a little in the dark regarding certain things. I'm planning to publish a pre-print of one of my manuscripts before sending it out to a journal. I tried finding answers to my questions, but they were pretty much vague or never to be found:
1. If I publish a pre-print and then I send it out to a journal, wouldn't the reviewers know my (and my co-authors) identity? Assuming they have read the pre-print by some other means or accidentally come across it. [please note that in our field, double blind-review is still the norm].
2. If my journal article is published, can I update the pre-print version with the updates that were made during the peer review?
3. Would the journal consider my pre-print as something that has "already been published"?
4. It is my understanding that I would be able to link my pre-print with the journal article once it is published. In that case, what would people likely cite: the article or the pre-print?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that most journals use only "single-blind" reviewing in which the author doesn't know the reviewer(s), but the reviewers have the author's name and affiliation. In such a case, pre-prints are no problem.
For those journals that use double-blind reviews it can be an issue. Reviewers can't be expected to avoid reading new work in their field, even if it is only available on pre-print servers. But some journals, not necessarily the same ones, won't accept a paper submission if it has appeared previously in any form, including a pre-print.
So, know the journal you want to submit to and act accordingly. If you expect double blind, then it isn't a good idea to "publish" prior to submission.
For the citation issue, it is hard to predict. People probably prefer to cite the official version, but may not want to pay for access, in which case they might cite the pre-print. Academics usually have ways to avoid paying (library access...), but sometimes just do the easiest thing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If your submission is easily discoverable, through pre-print or because it’s somehow publicly available, then indeed referees could infer the names and affiliations of the authors. That’s the “risk” you take, against the benefits of staking your claim and possibly getting some pre-submission comments.
On [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/), it is possible (and even recommended) to update submissions. In particular, it is possible to include details of the journal version (journal name, doi etc) as stand-alone or as part of an update. I don’t see a good reason not to update, but different sites may have different update policies.
Preprints are not usually considered publications as they are not peer-reviewed, unless preprints are posted on a site that will have some sort of copyright restrictions. I don’t know of such sites with restrictions and posting there would defeat the purpose of producing “preprints”. Some journals (Nature for one) frown upon pre-publications as they feel it decreases novelty, and might not accept submissions already posted on preprint servers; such journals are the exception rather than the rule.
People can choose to cite both preprint and journal versions, sometimes one and not the other. Good journals often ask authors to update citations to journal articles rather than preprints.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Regarding 1 and 3: the best way to be sure is to directly ask the editors of the journal if a submission would be compatible with the existence of a preprint. Different journals will have different policies. Note that double-blind peer review is not necessarily incompatible with a preprint: some venues (eg NeurIPS, a leading conference in machine learning) uses double-blind peer review, encourages authors to submit a preprint, and discourages reviewers to check them.
Regarding 2 and 4: most preprint servers indicate if a preprint is now available as a published paper (see for instance on bioRxiv) and will provide a link to it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/06/28
| 5,563
| 23,048
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc in physics and was in an advisory role in a project with an undergraduate student majoring in math. It was my first time collaborating with someone junior to me. The collaboration was not extremely successful, and I think I need some advice on how to supervise students.
Background information: The project was my proposal but I offered several other options in the beginning and the student picked the current one. It was purely theoretical and I simplified the project into several math problems or calculations so that the student can easily start working on them without the need of advanced knowledge. The math tools required were only basic first-year ones, e.g., calculus and linear algebra.
I knew from his CV that he has taken all required courses, so I indeed anticipated a better performance than the current one.
He also mentioned explicitly he enjoyed doing these type of analysis.
Student's performance: I was initially confident because the student seemed to understand everything I said and was also highly motivated. He seldom had questions about my notes and was working long hours. However, every time the student wrote up some notes and claimed that he solved one problem, I could always find some obvious loopholes or wrong calculations in the proof. I tried to explain these mistakes and he always quickly absorbed my point. But then the same thing would repeat. He would claim that he solved the problem once again, and then I quickly found out a mistake in his proof. When I asked him to proofread some of his notes himself, he was also not able to spot any mistakes.
After a while, I decided to take the lead and did calculations myself, because maybe he was not well prepared to do calculations by himself. I would let him proofread my notes afterwards and raise questions when he had any. He always claimed that my notes were all correct. It was not a good sign, because sometimes I found out I made some mistakes in my own calculations, but he was never able to spot them.
In the end, I had to finish the project mostly by myself. It was okay, but the experience was kind of intimidating, because I didn't expect a student to act that way. I always imagine a student should either fail to make any calculations or successfully conduct them (like myself), instead of keeping writing notes without knowing they were wrong. It was extremely hard that I was not able to teach him anything because he always acted like he already knew what I said and the mistakes were only a result of carelessness. Still, I find it hard to understand why one can make so many mistakes without knowing.
Question: I was wondering, is there any good method I might adopt if I come across this type of student in the future?<issue_comment>username_1: Normally people see their own failings as mistakes and failings in others as character flaws. It speaks well of you that you seemed to have done the opposite, trying to work with the student in correcting their errors, as opposed to just writing them off. Again, that's good of you. But at some point you also have to admit that other people don't care, can't get it, and are just not temperamentally suited for certain jobs. The old saying is that "you can take a donkey to the water, but you can't make him drink." The solution is then, next time, get a better student.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that doing the calculations yourself and asking the student to proofread them may not have been the best approach. If he can't even spot his own mistakes, what are the chances he would spot mistakes by his supervisor? Maybe a better approach would have to have him do the calculations on a blackboard and challenge every step, possibly breaking everything down in small steps. This way you can maybe figure out why he makes these mistakes and how he can avoid them in the future.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: In his *Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*, [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann) provided an incorrect proof of the impossibility of a local variable theory of [QM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) that arguably put QM on the wrong track until [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell) decisively [refuted it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) decades later. (This is the popular version, but others insist that <NAME> never intended his statements as a proof). I don't think anyone would call <NAME> a lazy mathematician. The point being that we all make mistakes, and beginners make a lot of mistakes.
You were working with an undergraduate. My point of view is that the primary goal in that situation should be helping the student become better at making sound mathematical arguments. If you get *useful* work out of the process that's gravy. My strategy would have been to circle the section containing the error, and ask the student to tell me why it might be problematic. Repeat as necessary. The goal of the exercise is to train the student on how to read and critique their own work.
Of course I recognize that I didn't see how egregious the errors were, and some students really are lazy. I'm assuming a good faith effort on the part of the student, who may simply be naive and inexperienced.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Your experiences are normal when supervising undergraduates, and do not represent any failing on your part.
Some thoughts, based on my experiences:
1. The comparative difference between you and the average undergraduate is much greater than you realise. As a Postdoc, your ability in your subject is *much* greater than the average student. You have got your degree, probably with good results, enjoyed the subject enough to want to pursue a PhD, got that PhD, and still been motivated enough and with a good enough record to land a Postdoc. Few students will go on to the second two of those. It will take a long time for you to understand the ways in which stuff which is easy for you is hard for people who are much less capable than you.
2. It is difficult to remember how hard stuff used to be. The stuff that undergraduates are doing now is already second nature to you. It is hard to accurately reflect on your own experiences of learning this stuff for the first time.
3. Undergraduates will frequently present as more confident and capable than they actually are. Not asking questions is usually not a sign of understanding and competence, but rather an indication that they either have not understood things well enough to ask questions or are worried about making themselves look foolish by asking "silly" questions. In my experience, the best approach is to get them to explain everything back to you once you've explained it.
4. The success or failure of an individual student is not a reflection on your own abilities. Yes, over a long period of time, your abilities will result in slightly more or slightly fewer students succeeding, but the variation in ability, motivation, etc. of each student is a much bigger factor than you are.
And finally, and I think most importantly, you need to remember that is *them that succeed or fail, not you*. It is not up to you to ensure the project is a success, it is up to *them*. You should not complete a project for them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: As an experienced IT person, I am not quite in your shoes, but I occasionally work with juniors that display similar behaviour or characterial traits as you describe. My advice thus is this:
* Focus on helping them help themselves. Maybe you can point out a specific chapter in some book they have access to, or name a specific technique they can google to help them. Even if they then just transfer the read knowledge unto the task, that will help them already.
* Don't be afraid to point out errors. As long as you do that objectively, it's fine. If you, at the moment, have no time (or nerves) for a deep explanation, it is fine to simply point to an error; give maybe a small hint of what it is about, and send them off.
* Them being "nice" or "understanding" or agreeing to all you say, or mirroring your sentences, and so on and forth, is neither her or there. It does not reflect in any way about what's going on inside their head when it's time to solve problems, which is the ultimate goal they have to achieve. Feel free to repeatedly remind them that unless they ask you about something, you don't know what to teach them. If you have a scheduled meeting, and they give you no "fodder" for anything to tell them, then the meeting will just be a short one. After 2 or 3 such events, they should be able to get the message.
* Remind yourself that they are adults being where they are willingly. They are not in school anymore, which arguably is forced on a good percentage of children against their will. This means that if at any point you get the feeling that they just don't care, it is a good point for *you* to stop caring as well. You will not make them better against their own will.
* Finally, if it's someone who usually is totally on the right track and just made an obvious, honest, error, you can simply correct it on the spot to save both of you some time. But regularly, do not do that. Nobody is helped by you providing the solution. If they cannot solve a task with the help mentioned above (i.e. you pointing out where they went wrong, and with some helpful pointers what to do instead, but not the whole solution), they might simply not be ready for the level of difficulty yet. They have to work on their skills; or maybe look for simpler tasks (which may or may not be in your scope to help them with).
Finally, you should yourself become clear whether you are in the role of a teacher, a coach or a mentor. It sounds to me that your role is that of a [mentor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentorship). There are best practices and rules of engagement there - that Wikipedia page should give you some pointers for inspiration. The most important bit about the concept of mentorship (for me personally at least) is that the *responsibility* lies with the mentee, not the mentor. If the mentee does not pull, the mentor has no reason to push.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Unfortunately I do not think any of the existing answers are good. I am pretty sure your analysis of what happened is wrong.
>
> I was initially confident because the student seemed to understand everything I said and was also highly motivated.
>
>
>
He seemed, but did not understand.
>
> He seldom had questions about my notes and were working for long hours.
>
>
>
People who do not understand do not necessarily ask questions. In fact, people who do understand the key concepts almost surely would ask a LOT of questions. Working for long hours implies nothing at all.
>
> However, every time the student wrote up some notes and claimed that he solved one problem, I could always find some obvious loopholes/wrong calculations in the proof.
>
>
>
This is the evidence of incompetency, which you appear to want to overlook.
>
> I tried to explain these mistakes and he always quickly absorbed my point.
>
>
>
He did not absorb anything.
>
> But then the same thing would repeat. He would claim that he solved the problem once again, and then I quickly found out a mistake in his proof.
>
>
>
So of course the same thing repeats.
>
> When I asked him to proofread some of his notes himself, he was also not able to spot any mistakes.
>
>
>
Of course he cannot spot any mistakes when he doesn't have any understanding.
>
> After a while, I decided to take the lead and did calculations myself, because maybe he was not well prepared to do calculations by himself.
>
>
>
He was incapable to do it, not unprepared.
>
> I would let him proofread my notes afterwards and raise questions when he had any. He always claimed that my notes were all correct.
>
>
>
This is exactly what some incompetent people do in order to try to get by.
>
> It was not a good sign, because sometimes I found out I made some mistakes in my own calculations, but he was never able to spot them.
>
>
>
This is the other main piece of evidence that you seem to want to overlook.
>
> In the end, I had to finish the project mostly by myself. It was okay, but the experience was kind of intimidating, because I didn't expect a student to act that way.
>
>
>
It was not okay, and if you continue to do this then you would simply allow more incompetent students to get by.
>
> I always imagine a student should either fail to make any calculations or successfully conduct them (like myself), instead of keeping writing notes without knowing they were wrong.
>
>
>
You made a wrong assumption. Not every student is honest.
>
> It was extremely hard that I was not able to teach him anything because he always acted like he already knew what I said and the mistakes were only a result of carelessness.
>
>
>
Of course incompetent people who are trying to hide their incompetency would give excuses for their mistakes. They will not admit that they do not know anything if they can get away with it.
>
> Still, I find it hard to understand why one can make so many mistakes without knowing.
>
>
>
Already clearly explained.
>
> I was wondering, is there any good method I might adopt if I come across this type of student in the future?
>
>
>
Grade fairly, instead of assuming that they are competent. You can teach an honest hardworking student. But don't assume that you can teach this kind of student that you have described. In almost all cases you would be wasting your time and reducing the amount of time and energy you can spend on your other more honest students.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Do you and the student have the same cultural background? In some cultures you just say "Yes, Sir!" or "Yes, Ma'am!" enthusiastically because you don't question those who rank above you. If the student learns to operate in your culture, the math part might get easier.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: I believe there is an emotional maturity piece here. It doesn't seem to me that the student is careless about this project if they're putting in the hours, it sounds like they simply don't yet have the "emotional maturity" (which is not a bad thing and normal for an undergrad) for this type of work. If this student's CV seems to be up to par and their technical knowledge is there, but from the inability to ask questions and admit mistakes, there seems to be an emotional aspect missing from this student's ability to perform.
In this case, it's your role (should you accept it, most people don't and just fail the student, which is fine) to provide a safe space for the student to ask questions and "scaffold" (this is a parenting term) the technical work at the student's pace, so you're kindly and supportively there to lead him through getting stuck or stumped.
This takes building a safe, personal, and informal relationship where the student can show up as themselves, rather than the "I know everything" robot that they *think* you expect them to be.
I vividly remember doing research as an undergrad and thinking I need to put on my armor to make myself seem smarter or more legit around the grad students, post docs, and especially the professor at the expense of vulnerability and true learning. The emotional immaturity makes us believe we MUST to show up as more capable than we really are to be accepted, supported, and respected. It's intimidating to be the new (little) guy amongst giants.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: Here is my opinion as a student of this type.
Let's take, for instance, something as simple as F=ma. This is something which can be introduced to high school students, and they may say they understand it, but if you give some random questions, then they may not know how to start, or have a lot of misconceptions of be able to use the law, but incorrectly.
The main issue stems of a feeling that the person feels that they understand the main text completely, but when trying to apply in another context realizes that the main text actually said something different than they thought, and that the issue is more complicated than initially thought. This is a fundamental problem that pedagogy has to tackle. [Related question on Philosophy SE by me](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91633/how-is-it-possible-to-explain-a-logical-language-through-a-natural-one), also tangentially related [Veritasium video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgwIhB58PA)
I believe, this fundamentally stems from a conceptual gap in understanding the material, and if the student were to somehow have an introduction to the material which tries to give the concepts which the technical details try so hard to capture, then they would be able to make all the calculations up to arithmetic errors.
For example, I'd imagine it'd be the same type of difficulty one has if one tries to paint *[Mona Lisa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa)* from a description of it, without ever seeing it. It seems clear to me that a person who has actually seen it, or has active sight of *Mona Lisa* would be able to pain it easier than a descriptive person.
---
Incidentally, I found a certain fix to dealing with these kind of issues when I started doing powerlifting. In videos where they instruct on how to do the motion that you'd typically find on YouTube, there'd be an end section where they discuss how the exercise commonly go wrong. So, perhaps you could try giving probing with questions of common misunderstandings to check if he understood the material/ kick him out of the [Dunning–Kruger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) state.
---
In my personal opinion, very few number of people can understand the text in the intended meaning by author in first go. And everyone suffers from these issues to some degree. For some people, on the outside you feel they don't have the problem, because they try work themself their problems in private or ask on SE :)
---
Since you said physics, maybe you could ask them to read [Penrose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose)'s books?
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: *I was initially confident because the student seemed to understand everything I said and was also highly motivated . . .*
This is the problem in a nutshell.
You didn't probe the student's knowledge and understanding limits adequately to begin with. You just allowed them to make the right faces to feign understanding and mannerize their way through things *as you told them what it was all about*.
I know postdocs are time-pressed. But, where juniors are concerned, it's no use telling yourself that you shouldn't waste time on basic stuff: it's the flaws in the basics that trip people up, time and time again.
The age/experience/status gap is also a bit too much for most students in this sort of situation. This capability gap is often contradicted by the seemingly equitable way in which a postdoc adviser speaks to the undergrad. In their defense, postdocs are just usually striving to complete research work of their own, please current faculty and find a full-time position for themselves. Before the latter day comes, many academics don't give much thought to learning how to supervise properly let alone how to teach right.
So if I was you I'd do three things:
1. Before agreeing to advise any student, interview a few students in a probing way, a way that explores how they tackle questions, how they react to other perspectives suggested by you, how ready they are to adopt better ways of seeing things, etc. Give them plenty of scope to express themselves.
2. Always speak in a clear and formal way - do not try to equalize the nature of the working relationship: it's not equal between a postdoc and an undergrad.
3. When selecting an undergrad student collaborator, accord more weight to character traits - honesty about mistakes, effort to communicate clearly, willingness to share his/her ideas - than to traits of intelligence.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: An "undergraduate student" is someone that started his university studies and will end up with a 3 years diploma (at least this is how I understand it - this is how it works in most of Europe).
You therefore have the whole zoo of students: the ones that arrived there by mistake because there was some light on, the ones who wanted to do A and realized that this is not for them, the ones that wanted to do A but are not good enough to do it, the ones that are in the right place, the ones ...
You got an average student who is nice enough to show enthusiasm but was maybe not that interested in the topic. He maybe wants to go through it to put a checkmark and go ahead. From my experience, this is 76% of students.
I studied physics which I loved. I also had math which I saw as a useful toolbox and that's all (I also have screwdrivers and I am not that interested in all the love that was put into their engineering). Calculus was great, algebra was a walking nightmare. I smiled my way through algebra and was happy to close that chapter of my life.
>
> is there any good method I might adopt if I come across this type of student in the future?
>
>
>
With time you will get better at choosing the students to have the ones that are actually interested.
In the meantime, well, you will not change the world and will end up with students like me. I would have loved my teacher to just give up. She did not, which I appreciate as a human, because she loved her topic and I am a rather nice guy so I smiled and tried my best to do pretend work.
I also had economics during my PhD and I forgot to take part in any of the courses (which I now regret). I realized that a bit late (when I read that we had to get a mark for that) and crawled miserably into her office. She said that she prefers to have students that are interested and she also realizes that economics is like any topic - someone may not like it (she said she hated physics at school). Gave me a top mark (it did not matter the slightest, just bureaucracy) and we were done.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_12: According to the book The Peter Principle, your student has reached his level of incompetency, and therefore, is not capable of figuring out the mistakes all by himself.
I am a software tech lead, and I'm facing exactly the same issue. When doing code reviews with junior developers, I can easily point out the mistakes while they were having hard time to identify them.
<NAME> once said:
>
> You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.
>
>
>
So, with that said, I think we're down with 2 options. First one would be continue to help the student to raise his level of competency, and second option would be to find a replacement, if necessary.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/28
| 1,114
| 4,443
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Back story**: A new postdoc joined my research for a manuscript that I was working on with a senior research scientist for 2 years. The new postdoc wanted 2nd authorship but the senior scientist also wanted 2nd and felt she contribution more intellectually. After the senior research scientist spoke with her, she became angry with me.
The manuscript was published with all the co-authors listed. After the work was published in a journal, this co-author removed my name as the 1st-author on her Google Scholar. Basically manually removed my name as the first-author in the author's list.
NOTE: My First-authorship is not affected as this removal has not been done at the journal level, only on their Google Scholar.
There's no reason to bring it to the attention of the journal because this occurred on Google scholar, not on the journal. I think it is unethical behavior and mabybe even plagiarism.
I know the removal of my name from her Google Scholar page wasn't an accident, because when she realized she couldn't get 2nd authorship, she got angry and stopped communicating with me, and never completed her section of the research.
**My question:** What should I do about this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> It is unethical behavior, maybe considered as plagiarism but they didn't actually use the paper other than advertise it on their Google scholar but manipulated the author list to remove the first-author.
>
>
>
Based on what's narrated, that's not plagiarism. Unethical in a way, probably: (edit: intentionally removing an author) ~~and that's even subjective.~~
PS: deleted after clarification by OP.
>
> What can be done about this situation?
>
>
>
In all likelihood, this co-author might have, on Google Scholar, *add article manually*. That's how they can '*amend*' the paper's entries.
The proper citation/entry will show on others, where the paper is added automatically by Google Scholar's *algorithm*.
So, is this something to *battle*, I personally don't see the need for it in the bigger picture of the war.
If however the authorship changes on the journal, then it calls for addressing.
If however the first author or other authors are pedantic about it, then they can also *add article manually* on their Google Scholar's profile with the correct information.
---
PS: It's a bit difficult understanding what OP is asking.
[Edit: OP clarification is of assistance]
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a weird situation. I think it is definitely unethical if she is really misrepresenting the author order, but I also don't think that you should lose too much sleep over it. If she is doing this intentionally, it's no different that lying about publications on a CV. Since it's on Google Scholar, just clicking on the linked article will reveal the truth. So, this shouldn't actually hurt you and it probably won't help your co-author either (in fact if someone noticed it would probably harm her). It's just petty.
As @username_1 mentioned, she might have manually added the entry. This will show up on her profile but, as you discovered, does not replace the automatic citation and should link to the proper paper (or nothing at all). Realistically anyone who comes across this and reads the paper will assume it is an error. I have actually had the google algorithm mess up citations like this - leaving out authors. You can link or merge the citations together on *your* profile. I think linking the citations is all you should do and probably all you *can* do.
If a copy of the paper pops up without your name on it, then it would be time to escalate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: After claryfing you are the first author, I can say only one thing: your co-author is very stupid if she thinks she can obtain something by falsifying entries in google scholar (or anywhere/anyhow, the tool is just a tool).
You do not need to spend anytime to discuss directly with her or other co-authors, discussing with idiots make you an idiot as well, do not be dragged in this cat fight, just write the editors there is an issue with the appearance of the paper in Google Scholar, they will deal with it.
If they do not deal with it, sooner or later the mighty google tool will find the error thanks [to its powerful algorithms](https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-internet-is-enabling-a-new-kind-of-poorly-paid-hell.18374/).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/28
| 1,757
| 7,002
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was involved with a physician in the write up of a unique case report. In May 2022 we started the project. I wrote the introduction, case reports after interviewing the patients, prevalence data after running systematic review in three databases with 10,000 papers to filter and tabulated the results of that in a 126 page document as supplementary material, hired illustrator for a diagram with my own expenses and drew a pedigree as well.
The physician who is more senior than me tasked herself with writing the abstract and discussion.
I finished all my tasks in May 2022 last year. Since then till now end of June 2023 I am yet to receive her parts of the manuscript and I am very frustrated at this point since I haven't worked with someone with such a bad work ethic. I have basically run around to obtain patient consent and complete ethical approval since she hasn't lifted a finger. I feel like I am stretching myself and doing everything since she can't pull her weight. I'll summarise the time line below:
June 2022- October 2022 - She blamed and cussed the radiologist for nor providing images and that was the reason for a standstill.
October 2022 she firmly promised she'd get her laptop with enthusiasm and complete the paper. Nothing came out of that promise citing being busy with work.
March 2023 she said the same thing End of the month come what may the paper would be submitted to the journal. Again excuses about having calls in hospital and not finding time to write a 1 page discussion but promises to complete it April 25th when she will take time off work.
April 25 - May 5th - She said she wrote the part but somehow didn't click Autosave and lost her progress and that she suffers from anxiety because a patient who is an addict threatened her in clinic and she can't function as a result of it. She promised in ten days time she will recover and send the manuscript to me.
May 20th - I follow up. She says she is busy at work with on calls and couldn't find time. Promises she will resign in June and that'll give her time and liberty to write the abstract and discussion
June - she says she is having a surgery and needs time to recover. Following that she says she needs to work on her visa and travel plans, packing etc and promises to send the document in another week. I followup after a week and she says the surgery has caused her emotional issues and she is packing and busy. I think I lost all my patience at that juncture and this seems like a deadbeat project.
I asked her yesterday let's set a firm deadline and she accused me for not being understanding. Having had her break 7-8 promises I can't trust that she will send the document next week. If writing a one page discussion needs 14 months (May 2022 - July 2023) I offered her that I'll just do if she has difficulty in completing the task but she can retain authorship by reviewing and providing feedback to the manuscript.
Excuses or circumstances are fine if it is a one off or twice but this is a pattern now of promising and not delivering. I cannot fathom why writing a discussion takes more than 14 months. This is not a 5000 patient RCT or a 30 year cohort study.
I have never worked with anyone behaving like this in the past. I feel like quitting this project that seems that it won't reach fruition because of her behaviour. I feel like telling her next week by Tuesday deadline that I want to resign from this project and withdraw my name as a Co author. I do not want to nuke the project by suggesting that I retract all my parts of the manuscript. After that it is free reign for her to write everything from scratch up to her own convenience whenever she feels like it. I am very frustrated and annoyed at this point.
What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> It is unethical behavior, maybe considered as plagiarism but they didn't actually use the paper other than advertise it on their Google scholar but manipulated the author list to remove the first-author.
>
>
>
Based on what's narrated, that's not plagiarism. Unethical in a way, probably: (edit: intentionally removing an author) ~~and that's even subjective.~~
PS: deleted after clarification by OP.
>
> What can be done about this situation?
>
>
>
In all likelihood, this co-author might have, on Google Scholar, *add article manually*. That's how they can '*amend*' the paper's entries.
The proper citation/entry will show on others, where the paper is added automatically by Google Scholar's *algorithm*.
So, is this something to *battle*, I personally don't see the need for it in the bigger picture of the war.
If however the authorship changes on the journal, then it calls for addressing.
If however the first author or other authors are pedantic about it, then they can also *add article manually* on their Google Scholar's profile with the correct information.
---
PS: It's a bit difficult understanding what OP is asking.
[Edit: OP clarification is of assistance]
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a weird situation. I think it is definitely unethical if she is really misrepresenting the author order, but I also don't think that you should lose too much sleep over it. If she is doing this intentionally, it's no different that lying about publications on a CV. Since it's on Google Scholar, just clicking on the linked article will reveal the truth. So, this shouldn't actually hurt you and it probably won't help your co-author either (in fact if someone noticed it would probably harm her). It's just petty.
As @username_1 mentioned, she might have manually added the entry. This will show up on her profile but, as you discovered, does not replace the automatic citation and should link to the proper paper (or nothing at all). Realistically anyone who comes across this and reads the paper will assume it is an error. I have actually had the google algorithm mess up citations like this - leaving out authors. You can link or merge the citations together on *your* profile. I think linking the citations is all you should do and probably all you *can* do.
If a copy of the paper pops up without your name on it, then it would be time to escalate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: After claryfing you are the first author, I can say only one thing: your co-author is very stupid if she thinks she can obtain something by falsifying entries in google scholar (or anywhere/anyhow, the tool is just a tool).
You do not need to spend anytime to discuss directly with her or other co-authors, discussing with idiots make you an idiot as well, do not be dragged in this cat fight, just write the editors there is an issue with the appearance of the paper in Google Scholar, they will deal with it.
If they do not deal with it, sooner or later the mighty google tool will find the error thanks [to its powerful algorithms](https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-internet-is-enabling-a-new-kind-of-poorly-paid-hell.18374/).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/28
| 1,378
| 5,867
|
<issue_start>username_0: A young colleague of mine got Ph.D. in mathematics in a field A. He spent one year elsewhere at a postdoc. Then he got a tenure track position at his alma mater. Meantime he realized that he better likes to work in a different field B. However he does not have enough background in the field B, and he needs to learn quite a few advanced courses which do not exist in his department. After two years of having the tenure track position he is thinking to go for a postdoc to such a place where the field B is well represented.
**What are his chances to find such a postdoc, in particular is such a plan realistic at all?**
As a partial explanation of his change of interests is that he used methods close to the field B to solve a long standing problem from the field A. However he is not considered to be an expert in the field B and has no publications in B.<issue_comment>username_1: Not unheard of, but near zero chances of working out.
People who land a tenure track position are, by definition, top candidates and thus more likely to land a second tenure track position. I know of a tenured Biologist who got a second PhD in the humanities and then applied and landed a tenure track position at a humanities department at another university! Talk about switching fields. So switching between math fields does not sound that dramatic in that context. Knowing nothing else about your friend, I would say that his chances are better than average (but that's not enough, read on.)
You asked about the chances of this plan working: close to zero. Too few positions, too many good candidates out there, and the black mark of having left a tenure track position after only two years because of a change of heart. He probably has a better chance of working in field B by staying in his current job and learning what he can from there.
Edited to add from a very useful comment:
Changing the field is not the issue, abandoning the position is the problem. Whenever someone leaves unexpectedly, teaching load has to be redistributed, a new hiring committee convened, etc. In other words, lots of additional work for precisely the people doing the hiring. One of the many criteria for hiring is "is this person sticking around, or are we going to have to do this thing again in two years?"
Someone wins the lottery every day, but that still doesn't mean it's a good idea to play the lottery.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is not uncommon for people to switch fields of mathematics. But you should really ask your colleague, why he thinks this cannot be done in-situ.
One reason to go would be to learn about field B. But at the level we are talking about, he should be perfectly capable to study a topic at a faster speed from textbooks and lecture notes, especially if he already understands some of the ideas. I am also one of the people who would like nothing more than to forever be a student, but I still realise that this clearly is not the best use of my time.
The other reason to go would be to work with people in field B. You say that he is no expert in that, but nowhere does it say that this is required. The only things you need is to know someone and have an interesting problem to work on. Both can be achieved by simply going to some conferences of B, presenting his results as "how B can be applied to A" and then talk with people there about what else is possible, leading first maybe to a few more works in A+B, allowing him to understanding B better and then go to also work in B without A at some point.
All this can be done while staying at his current position, painting him as expert in A and B, with a possibility to even start introducing classes on B at his alma mater, right in time for his tenure review. In contrast, if he leaves, he will just be another postdoc in B, in a sea of younger, more accomplished people.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: This is a very risky plan
-------------------------
Your colleague has already beaten the odds by getting a tenure track position, and there is no guarantee that they will be so fortunate if they decide to start over. We all like to think that our success is due solely to our own talent and hard work, but chance plays more of a role than we usually want to admit. Leaving a tenure track position for a postdoc means taking another spin on the wheel of fortune and accepting the new result, even if it's not as good as what you've already got.
Beyond that, I would expect your colleague not to be a top candidate for the postdocs. Presumably there are students graduating every year who have done their PhDs in field B, so why would someone hire your colleague with no relevant experience instead of one of them?
Furthermore, your colleague is now overqualified for a postdoc position. Often people are reluctant to hire overqualified candidates because they are concerned that they will quickly become unhappy in the junior position because of its lower pay, lack of autonomy, and lesser prestige. Maybe your colleague would be an exception, but the prospective supervisor has no way of knowing for sure. Hiring someone with appropriate qualifications will be seen as a safer choice.
Finally, after all of that, even if your colleague manages to get a position in field B, and even if it goes well, then what? We all know what the academic job market is like. Would you really advise someone to face that again?
There is nothing stopping your colleague from pursuing work in field B, especially once they get tenure. It will involve some reaching out and making connections, as well as some self-study, but they don't have to do it all at once. They can still be productive in field A while training up in field B. People do it all the time; you don't have to go back to apprenticeship every time you want to do something new.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/28
| 3,566
| 14,367
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of my cousins is doing a Ph.D. in anthropology at Georgia State University. He is living with his wife and two kids. Clearly, his Ph.D. stipend is insufficient, so he works in a gas station and pizza shop.
On the other hand, I am doing a Ph.D. at a leading university in Poland in Computer Science. I am not doing any such part-time job because that distracts me from my research tasks and my aim in my life. I have been looking for a white-collar job related to computer programming, etc but haven't been able to find one. Why the employers don't like my CV is unclear. My family doesn't live with me as I can't afford it. So, my wife is furious and is threatening to leave me.
Is it usual and/or healthy for Ph.D. students to do part-time jobs outside academia?<issue_comment>username_1: It's much more common to hold jobs outside your field if you're a social sciences or arts major. There's simply not that many "part time anthropologist wanted" job ads laying around. Is that ideal for advancing ones skills? Probably not. But certainly healthier than going hungry. Also, the difference of student dept in USA vs EU can push one towards side hustles and might be playing a role in your example.
On a sidenote - there's a lovely stack called [the Workplace](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/) where I see people sharing great tips on looking for jobs, how to improve CVs, how to showcase your skills if you don't have industry experience. Maybe you'll find some help with the issues you've faced with your CV.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As a supervisor, I don't like the idea of students taking jobs outside of academia. I don't know of any supervisor who is ok with the idea, either. But it is also true that the interests of supervisors and graduate students are not always aligned. Yes, as a supervisor it's to my advantage that students put 100% of their work-hour efforts towards research. But it's also true that most grad student stipends are not enough to make a living wage. And in any [hierarchy of needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs), eating and paying rent is above pleasing your supervisor.
Having said that, two points:
1. Graduate students waste So. Much. Time. that I'm sure they could each take two part-time jobs and still get the same amount of lab work done. This is mainly because most are young and still have not learned how to prioritize their time. But the point remains true.
2. Among graduate students without second jobs, most I dare say, have hobbies outside of academia that take the time equivalent to a part-time job. I am surprised how academic supervisors frown on students taking unrelated part-time jobs, but matter-of-factly accept hobbies that are socially acceptable within academia, e.g. ultramarathoners, musicians, etc. This is not an argument against having hobbies, but rather an argument that we should let graduate students have second jobs until we pay them a living wage.
As a supervisor, I also have to remind myself that during my PhD studies I had like 5 part time jobs, all inside academia but unrelated to research. So I can't point fingers (and don't.) And in the US and UK, most graduate students have in fact second jobs which are tangentially related to research: it's called TAing. Universities call it training, but it's just an excuse for not paying living wages for people doing most of the teaching.
Is it common? People who can afford it don't have second jobs, and people who cannot afford it, well, they do.
This is just an opinion, but if I were in your shoes I'd sharpen that CV and get a job. There's no upside to coming home to a furious partner.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Universities should be responsible for paying PhD students a living wage. They should not need an additional job.
If the university is not paying you a living wage, you should not be a PhD student there. You also should not work for anyone else who does not pay a living wage.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: It depends on the contract. Despite my PhD stipend not offering a living wage, there was a clause in the PhD contract that students not work any outside jobs due to the fact that pursuing the PhD was supposed to be their full-time job. Many students went around this, or else they would not have been able to afford rent.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It is neither usual nor helpful.
Most PhD students already work far more hours than is helpful to either their progress or their well-being. Wearing yourself down before you even reach your workplace is never beneficial.
Academic side-jobs, e.g. as teaching assistants, lecturers, or demonstrators, etc. are, at least, beneficial to your main work, and usually both flexible and arranged around your primary occupation. It is unfortunate that most countries massively abuse PhD students as cheap research labour and pay them a fraction of what they should be paid or, worse, pay them a stipend instead of treating them as employees with rights and pensions, but that's not something an individual student can address.
Unfortunately, the individual parts of your question regarding your personal relationships are not something that StackExchange can or should address. How that influences your choices is up to you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: To counter some sweeping generalizations in the other answers: in some places/fields it is not uncommon and can be unproblematic or even slightly beneficial.
I did my PhD in computer science in Czech Republic. Since the stipend was quite low and we had no big grant, there was a tacit agreement in my group that PhD students actually work ~3 days a week on PhD and use the rest to get a part time job. I've seen similar setups in other CS groups I've interacted with, as well as some in different fields.
On the other hand, when there was grant money, PhD students were usually supposed to work full time on PhD - but then also got an OK-ish (but not great) wage beside the stipend.
I personally benefited from the part time work as it forced me to improve my software engineering skills and those allow me to work more efficiently in my current research area (biostats/bioinformatics). It also gave me the confidence that academia is not my only option in life, lowering stress around funding/job prospects etc. While I had some hard weeks during my PhD around various deadlines, I am quite sure I worked < 40hrs a week on average and still got a good (though not excellent) publication record at the end and finished my PhD on time (4 years as is the local default).
With that said, being expected to work full time on PhD and have another job *on top* of that sounds terrible. Also note that there is relatively good evidence that people generally do not get more work done when regularly spending more time at work beyond ~40hrs a week - although it may *feel* like you are achieving more. The exact optimal number of working hours definitely differs across industries and people, but is generally not very high (famously <NAME>'s experiments indicated that 40hrs was optimal for assembly line workers in his plants - presumably this work is less intellectually taxing than PhD). If you work too much, then after an initial boost from working longer, there is always a point when you get tired and end up achieving less per-week than previously, despite spending more time working. So if you have a second job and manage to fulfill your PhD obligations at the same time, it is likely that should you be allowed to spend less time physically at the lab/uni you could achieve very similar results (by virtue of being more focused and making less mistakes/wasting less time) but with much less stress.
Hope you find a good solution for you and your family.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: It's perfectly normal.
Whether it should be or not is a completely different matter however. At the end of the day, a lot of universities are in expensive cities and PhD stipends in a lot of countries simply aren't enough to have a decent standard of living in such locations.
This is doubly true if you're supporting a family.
Heck, enough PhDs have full time jobs and do their PhDs part-time (myself included), which is (in the UK at least) roughly equivalent to having a 20 hour a week job and a full time PhD.
---
Some advice if you do go down this route though:
1. Be very wary of burnout. You need to be constantly introspective and on the watch for it because it will sneak up on you and it can be catastrophic. At the first sign of burnout you need to take a rest or make adjustments to head it off.
2. Be up-front with your supervisor about it. They can help support you with this and try to manage your workload around your job if necessary. They may even be able to find some extra funding for you if you're really lucky.
3. If you can, get a part-time job teaching undergrads or running labs. This work often pays better than your typical retail job, and it makes a huge difference to your time if you just need to nip downstairs to teach a couple of hours' lab, than walk home, get changed, walk to work, etc.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: There is no clear definite answer to your question as every solution to your problem has different pros and cons, so let's look deeper into possible options
1. **get job now**
* culture wise it can be unacceptable for academia people to have an outside job, but you're a free human being, so it is totally up to you to decide, what you do with your spare time as long as you don't break your academia contract;
* you are likely to extremely overload yourself and burn out pretty soon, which is the main point to consider in this scenario. If you believe, you can cope with all the load and live a happy life, take this opportunity.
2. **find better compensated PhD program**
* it will require big effort and probably relocation to get into PhD that can actually provide you with living wage, but in the end bread on the table is way more important than studies;
* this scenario requires you to invest a decent amount of time and likely money now, but if it is achievable and you'll be happy with the new PhD as much as your current one, this is a great way to go.
3. **drop out now and return with enough money**
* if you cannot realistically sustain a living with PhD + job at the same time, which is the case for the majority of people, it can be necessary to accumulate decent amount of money in advance and go into PhD afterwards;
* you will sacrifice some time in this case as you will do PhD later, but you will not need to sacrifice your happiness if you can find a job that you will be happy with for a year or couple of years;
* also, you will have way more time to actually spend with your family during this course.
Academia life isn't really good for everybody and it is clearly not suitable for you in the current state of things. So any decision you take at this point is a good one as long as it will make you well-fed and happy.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: The only thing I would add to [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/197670/50595) from my personal history of working at 4 part time jobs during PhD is the following: **Do not take jobs that pay by the hour, I had taken these contracts exactly for your reasons.** I thought if I take contracts that take too much of my time, I wouldn't be able to focus on my career, etc.
It was a bad call.
Instead of taking 4 part time jobs, I should have taken 1 part time job that pays by month/week which covers everything. In Parisian conditions that would correspond to working at a cafe or restaurant.
4 part time jobs weren't really good for my career as it meant that I was working almost everyday on something even if it is for 2-3 hours a day. It also kept me away from most of the networking opportunities.
In the end I finished my PhD, but moved on to private sector. I assume however, if you have already a PhD stipend, you can take some time for searching for the perfect part time job. I would suggest to be on the look out for jobs with night shifts, such as being a watchman for some factory or better some company building at night or being a receptionist in a hotel at night etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: **TL:DR:** It is common in the Czech Republic in some fields. It may or may not be healthy, try and see.
A PhD student of Econometrics in Prague here (so at least partially relatable). I work full time and from my experience, working at least part time outside academia is the absolute standard here, since the common stipends are about the 1/4 of the average wage in the city and below 1/2 of our rent. Although, they probably often continue at the job they started during their (under)grad. However:
* I would be surprised, if there are no grants for "proper" PhD students, who actually do their PhD as a full-time research career. At least in the Czech Republic, there are country wide grants, which offer enough to "make a living". I would certainly recommend to apply for those.
* It may or may not be healthy. Some kinds of blue collar job might be healthy even in the literal sense, since we tend to neglect any form of physical activity. However, when it comes to the issues related to working too much and experience too much stress... that is a tough one. It will depend on the individual, but it definitely can get pretty daunting at times. However, I cannot imagine it being worse than the stress from not living with your family and facing a break up. Also, when I started to work more, I surprisingly found out, that I did not really have that much less useful free time. It seems like it forced me to waste the time less and/or use tools that increases productivity. There is also something to be said about the benefit of having a job that is complementary to your research and teaching.
I also find quite odd, that "employers don't like your CV". It obviously differs across countries, but I cannot imagine that no employer would take a CS PhD student (majoring in CS, I assume) as their junior programmer. I guess I would recommend to invest a bit of time to polish the CV, but you surely know more abut the situation than me.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/06/28
| 591
| 2,755
|
<issue_start>username_0: My mother is very sick with colon cancer and I am living with her and also doing online classes at a private university in California. I felt depressed and had a lot on my mind and ended up falling behind in one of my classes, but I am on schedule in the rest with only two classes remaining. The bad part is that the class I failed says it will not be offered again until a year and four months from now, I was supposed to graduate this August. My school's catalog does say something about offering extended time for assignments in some situations, but I am missing 7 weeks worth of assignments for the one class. My school has these account representatives that call you to check in periodically, but she made it sound like the only option I had was to wait a year and four months to take the class again. I can try asking the department director to help, but I am wondering if anyone has any advice?<issue_comment>username_1: Since your situation is unusual, the university, through the department head, might be able to arrange a special solution. The first option that comes to mind is an Independent Study course with some faculty member who will provide some guidance and a grade for the missed course. These are common enough that it is worth talking to the department head and/or the faculty member that normally teaches the course.
Good luck with all the travails.
You might also look to the "student counseling" office, if any, to find ways to avoid depression, which can slow you down or provide a block.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Situations like yours are common, and universities have policies for them. In a population of several thousand students, every semester a percentage of those students will have a family and/or medical emergency. The call you received sounds like from a "student retention" office (or whatever the name for that office at your university.) However, the most likely person to help is the chair of the department. It varies among universities, but chairs usually have broad authority to help students in cases like yours. These include allowing a late medical/family withdrawal from the class, offering a special topics course that later is made to cover for the class you failed, negotiating with the faculty member a grade of incomplete, and other options. Besides the chair, every university has a disabilities/accessibility office or a person at the assistant/associate dean level (sometimes called undergrad coordinator) that is tasked with helping students in your situation. Again, the actual title of the person varies, but every institution has one. Just inquire about the appropriate channel at your institution, and follow their instructions. Good luck.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/28
| 1,376
| 5,587
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently received an offer to join another university (in the US). I have not told my new university this, but one of the main reasons I want to leave my current university is because of another member of the faculty (let's call him "Joe").
Joe and I were in the same lab as PhD students and quarreled a lot. Later, we ended up on the faculty of the same university. I have moved on from these quarrels, but Joe continues to hold a grudge. Over the years I have tried to ignore him, but he continues to go out of his way to make my life miserable.
I'm leaving to be rid of Joe. However, my new university wants to hire more faculty in my research field, and Joe was suggested as a possible target for recruitment. They are prepared to make their next recruit a very attractive offer, so Joe may accept.
I haven't yet signed my offer, and I am not interested in it unless I am assured that Joe will not come to my new university. I can think of two ways to make a case against Joe to my new chair.
1. The diva approach
I directly tell the chair that I won't come unless they agree not to hire Joe. After their considerable time investment into recruiting me, they may agree to seal the deal.
The obvious downside is that this approach makes me sound immature, gripey, and dramatic to my new chair.
2. The good citizen approach
I make the case that Joe is bad for the department.
One major downside is that Joe did not have issues with many faculty at my current university. If my new chair tries to vet my claim with one of his contacts at my current university, my story may not hold up. Also, this approach won't provide an assurance unless I make it about me (e.g., "Joe is bad for your university, and I can't join a department with someone like him in it"), which still makes me sound like a diva.
Can anyone suggest a way for me to keep Joe out of my new university while minimizing the damage to my own reputation?<issue_comment>username_1: You could let your new chair know that part of the reason you left your previous institution is because of personal differences with Joe. You don't have to give any details or make accusations against Joe. You can just say that the two of you don't get along well. It's important to avoid assigning blame to Joe, because that can make it seem like you might be the problem. By maintaining a neutral tone, you are communicating that you are capable of maintaining professionalism despite interpersonal conflicts. After explaining the problem in a neutral tone, you can then express your concern about Joe joining your new department without making any immediate demands.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: While this is not yet a completely adequate answer I think it is important to note the following insight which may help the OP from inadvertently underplaying their interaction relative to the hiring committees possible future activities.
There is a danger to OP that the hiring people might think OP would appreciate a familiar face and that may count in Joe's favour (not knowing the impediment) and so some information may need to flow about the interpersonal conditions.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If you do not state your unwillingness to work with Joe again, e.g. by delaying your decision till it's clear whether an offer is made to Joe or not, you run a future risk of your new department wanting to hire Joe again.
Moreover, if you only raise objections to Joe when you are hired and someone at a faculty meeting next Spring says Joe's good hand and should be hired, they'll think why didn't you tell us all this beforehand ?
On the other hand, if you are candid about Joe, the hiring department may well choose to hire neither you nor Joe - and of course word of your mutual antipathy may well leak out.
That's the risk in the present situation.
But I think your present situation exists in the first place because you haven't said too much about it up to now. And it will continue until you explain to the hiring HoD your issues about this other member of your present faculty **and why you think such issues preclude the level of collegial relations that a successful department must have**.
If you are hired and Joe isn't, fine.
If you don't get hired and Joe does, fine.
If neither is hired, it is really high time for you to talk to your current HoD about this situation with a colleague that has gone on for quite long enough now.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Unless I have read this incorrectly, surely, if Joe is leaving, then there is no longer a need for *you* to leave your current university (unless Joe isn't the only reason that you wish to move, although you haven't specified that)... Joe moves on and everyone is happy. You could even turn down the offer from the new University *and* recommend Joe in your place, that way you increase the chances that Joe leaves.
However, if Joe is leaving *and* applying to the same university that you are applying to, purely because you are moving and applying, then that changes things - if you then decide to stay put, Joe could also do the same, just so that he can continue annoying you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you really don't want to work with Joe again, I would be as clear as possible about this.
It does not help to find a weak and polite formulation. I would say something like:
"There is an important thing I need you to know: I heard that you consider to hire Joe. Joe and me do not get along at all. If you hire him, I will probably leave."
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/29
| 1,180
| 4,852
|
<issue_start>username_0: First time here.
My background is in biomedical science, so I have no knowledge of coding whatsoever.
Since I was tasked with building a website for my lab, I used WIX as my website builder. I based my query on this question asked half a decade ago:
[How to efficiently (and aesthetically) display an evolving publications list on your webpage?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109114/how-to-efficiently-and-aesthetically-display-an-evolving-publications-list-on)
Similar to the post, I am trying to create an element on the page where there is a display of publications published. I tried to use the code provided in the original query (sadly, I just copied and pasted) to see if the code worked. I turned on Dev Mode and copied and pasted the JS (JavaScript) code. To no one's surprise, the website doesn't change. Not even an error.
My challenge is that I don't know which code I should change or not change. I am aware that I need to study coding a bit more before doing such a task, but I do hope someone more experienced and expert on this can help out a bit more.
I was wondering if anyone has step-by-step instructions on how to go with this query.
Much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: You could let your new chair know that part of the reason you left your previous institution is because of personal differences with Joe. You don't have to give any details or make accusations against Joe. You can just say that the two of you don't get along well. It's important to avoid assigning blame to Joe, because that can make it seem like you might be the problem. By maintaining a neutral tone, you are communicating that you are capable of maintaining professionalism despite interpersonal conflicts. After explaining the problem in a neutral tone, you can then express your concern about Joe joining your new department without making any immediate demands.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: While this is not yet a completely adequate answer I think it is important to note the following insight which may help the OP from inadvertently underplaying their interaction relative to the hiring committees possible future activities.
There is a danger to OP that the hiring people might think OP would appreciate a familiar face and that may count in Joe's favour (not knowing the impediment) and so some information may need to flow about the interpersonal conditions.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If you do not state your unwillingness to work with Joe again, e.g. by delaying your decision till it's clear whether an offer is made to Joe or not, you run a future risk of your new department wanting to hire Joe again.
Moreover, if you only raise objections to Joe when you are hired and someone at a faculty meeting next Spring says Joe's good hand and should be hired, they'll think why didn't you tell us all this beforehand ?
On the other hand, if you are candid about Joe, the hiring department may well choose to hire neither you nor Joe - and of course word of your mutual antipathy may well leak out.
That's the risk in the present situation.
But I think your present situation exists in the first place because you haven't said too much about it up to now. And it will continue until you explain to the hiring HoD your issues about this other member of your present faculty **and why you think such issues preclude the level of collegial relations that a successful department must have**.
If you are hired and Joe isn't, fine.
If you don't get hired and Joe does, fine.
If neither is hired, it is really high time for you to talk to your current HoD about this situation with a colleague that has gone on for quite long enough now.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Unless I have read this incorrectly, surely, if Joe is leaving, then there is no longer a need for *you* to leave your current university (unless Joe isn't the only reason that you wish to move, although you haven't specified that)... Joe moves on and everyone is happy. You could even turn down the offer from the new University *and* recommend Joe in your place, that way you increase the chances that Joe leaves.
However, if Joe is leaving *and* applying to the same university that you are applying to, purely because you are moving and applying, then that changes things - if you then decide to stay put, Joe could also do the same, just so that he can continue annoying you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you really don't want to work with Joe again, I would be as clear as possible about this.
It does not help to find a weak and polite formulation. I would say something like:
"There is an important thing I need you to know: I heard that you consider to hire Joe. Joe and me do not get along at all. If you hire him, I will probably leave."
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/29
| 3,745
| 15,990
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a biomedical lab. There are graduate students who don't do their work. Instead, both of them spend most of their time talking (not about their research). They also complain a lot and make a negative environment for others so other people do not want to join the lab. What do I do? I am up at night worrying about it. There are other good students in the lab who do work.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a great question. A critical task for anyone running a lab is keeping up team morale and the environment from turning toxic. It's a never ending task. And you are right to worry about it, as the situation can deteriorate into a negative filter, in which good people move away and only the complainers stay.
I'll make some recommendations, in order of escalation. But a few caveats before that:
The first thing to do is a little bit of introspection. Ask all students about their complaints. Perhaps some of the complaints are legitimate and the issues are bothering all students, but only a few are sitting around complaining. As the lab leader, it's your responsibility to address any and all valid complaints.
Second, be aware that many people (myself included) engage in intellectual work by cycling through intense concentration and intense diversion. We work for 3 hours without breaks, then recharge by breaking off the concentration with unrelated tasks for 15-30m. This can include chatting, browsing the Internet, etc. Make sure it's not that you are only catching them in the diversion part of their cycle. Pit bosses don't motivate academics.
Third, recognize that academics complain like it's a sport. Myself, I log 3 complaints every morning before having coffee.
However, if you actually have your ear on the lab floor and you know for sure that all legitimate complaints are taken care of, then these are some strategies:
One colleague of mine has two sets of grad student offices, one near the lab, one in the basement. He moves toxic people to the basement. I'll just say that the method works.
Another colleague is very hands-on, modeling positive behavior, countering toxic behavior and complaints with positive behavior and talk: having coffee in the break room every morning and listening to people's concerns, fixing any issues as early as possible, having a weekly lab lunch, etc. Nobody likes unfairness, and your other grad students might take it to themselves to tell the complainers, "hey man, why don't you shut up and get some work done?"
You can always address the complainers directly by asking if anything is wrong. They'll deny it. Just take their denial at face value, but the cognitive dissonance might make them change their behavior.
You should avoid trying to counter their negativity with negativity (scolding, passive-aggressive emails, nagging, etc.) It doesn't work.
Finally, the nuclear option if nothing else works: presumably these people are not getting anything done. If they are interrupting the work of other students, it's your responsibility to protect the other students. Write the problematic students a warning for lack of academic progress. At the third warning, fire them (check your institution's policies about the necessary steps, it probably won't involve HR, but it will probably involve more than a few administrators.) Do it for the sake of your good students.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to @cheery.beach’s suggestion you can jointly set their weekly goals and track the progress closely by having them present in the weekly meeting. Usually just walking through the lab at multiple points during the day makes the students more likely to focus on their work. One on one meeting to listen to their grievances would also be helpful. But the bottom line is either they don’t have enough work that they enjoy. This is an easier problem to solve. If they don’t like field or the lab at all it’s better to just share maybe they don’t want to spend their whole life in the area they don’t enjoy and ask them to find other opportunities
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This sucks, but reassured that you are not the first one to face this situation. The bad news is that this will not fix itself. Don't make the mistake of waiting too long before addressing issues, idly hoping things would just magically clear up. They won't. Negativity and toxicity spread and fester and if you are losing sleep over it, that's a telltale sign that something needs to happen and unfortunately as the PI it is your job to step in.
If you have not yet done so, then you are probably dreading it or are at a loss what to do. In that case, first seek advice. Talk to colleagues, or HR, or anyone else you think can help you out here. Then at least you will go in feeling you are not just winging it.
Also sit down by yourself, and look at the situation from every angle.
Then go and talk to your people. Up to you how you want to do that.
You might opt for a group setting, and call in everyone to address this - but this will only work if you feel confident and in the lead (which you are, but may not feel like). You could consider having a third party present, but this needs to be someone who has experience with these group dynamics.
You could opt for an e-mail to the lab expressing your concern (not about specific people obviously but about the atmosphere in general) and announcing that you will address this with everyone 1-on-1 in the upcoming weeks. Then it's out in the open and people can prepare (and so can you), but it might also result in gossip and different stories going around because you are not talking with everyone at once.
What is your relationship with these two toxic people like? How often do you speak to them 1-on-1? Can you have coffee with them and tell them you get the impression that they are unhappy and complain a lot and maybe this will allow them to open up on you?
Alternatively, do you have one person in your lab whom you trust who might fill you in on what is going on? Don't make your problem their problem, but sometimes it helps to get an idea.
Whatever you end up doing, prepare yourself and remain calm (which can be the hardest thing) during these interactions. Thank people for sharing their perspectives. Do something with the input, and keep the lines of communication open.
Also be aware that this is a process, not a quick fix and something that you continually need to pay attention to (maybe not to the extent of your weekly lunches colleague but more than you are doing now).
And finally, be aware that there might be the possibility that someone might end up leaving the lab if they are not happy. This too will pass and it comes with the job. You've got this and over time you will get more experienced and better at dealing with these things.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Top three answers are spot on.
The only things I would add are:
1. Document everything. You need to have a file for each individual grad student (at least the trouble makers). If they complain, cause trouble, or when you talk to them seeking resolution etc. you need to immediately document. The reason is this: should you have to fire them, or seriously reprimand them, you better be able to show a pattern of behavior on their part, and an effort by you, to resolve it. This is without a doubt the most important protection you can have. Lawsuits can be filed, both against the university and you personally.
2. It doesn’t matter if you are principle investigator, or the PIs assistant. You are an authority figure. Me personally, it’s the assistants to the PIs, directors, etc. that really have the most power. If whoever is your boss doesn’t allow you this authority, or undermines you, that is the problem—and in that case, they are dumping this on you without granting you authority nor their help. That isn’t just and you should be held in a much higher regard.
3. I suspect moral is quite low. This is not because you are lacking. It happens everywhere. When people don’t know exactly what the hierarchy is, and they don’t meet with the “leaders” frequently and aren’t told what their role and responsibilities are, they begin to feel neglected. They feel like they are going to fail and the negativity over flows. Regular meetings (ie: every week, every day—or whenever, regardless of what is going on) are pitfall. It’s usually a bad idea to have regular meetings, especially if those meetings are only informative, as in you are only providing them information. However, many labs have so much to cover that daily meetings are a must. So, try to provide the information they need in emails, postings on the white boards, hand outs, etc. This will allow you to cut straight to the important aspects at meetings, specifically hearing their progress, sharing ideas and providing feedback.
At first, I would have regular meetings, every morning and every evening. Set a tone. Let them know this is the way it is. They are kids. They won’t like being called kids, but they are. They aren’t hardened experienced adults like you. In the meetings, tell them the goals for the morning/day/week. Make them specifically say what they are doing to meet said goals, where they are, and if they are having difficulties. This way, everyone in lab knows what others are doing. After all, it’s every grad students responsibility to make sure they do everything in their power to help their colleagues be successful. If one is sick or away, others can step in. Once they catch the tempo and are a smooth running machine, cut back in the meetings.
Above all else, do not ever let them push you around.
And if someone complains, your response should be, “How do you propose to fix this?” If they don’t have an answer, show them the door and tell them to not complain again unless they have a reasonable solution to the problem. They aren’t undergrads anymore and you expect them to begin acting like it.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I will separate the issue into different aspects.
You seem to have too much of a "laissez faire" attitude in your lab. This is possible with a team of extremely high morale and it is possible to develop such team spirit, but it is a long process to get there, especially from where you start. Clearly, it does not work in your lab at this stage. You have to pull in the reins.
Because of your experience with a nasty lab leader, you do not want to be like them, so you are ready to err on the opposite end of the spectrum. But a too permissive attitude can be as eroding (though for different reasons) as a too rigid/nasty one. There is a fundamental difference between nasty and strict, which is often confused.
In fact, the key to success in a difficult environment is strictness, but fairness. This is the magic combination. You can afford to be strict if you are very balanced and fair. Any hard measure you take that is supported by healthy reasoning is less hard. People will get used to it and if you are predictable (not a pushover, just consistent in how you handle things), your life will become much easier.
Your problem is that your "problem children" already know your weaknesses and triggers. They have sensed what they perceive as your weakness, and you have now to retrain them to understand that compassion and friendliness is not weakness. This will be a major issue to fix. For now, accept that compassion and friendliness have to take a back seat. They can be in the back of your mind for the future, but they are not your allies in the moment.
Your problem children will probably not admit to what they do and they may skirt the issue when confronted directly, so I suspect, just sitting down with them and having a polite professional conversation to find out if they have a point is probably no longer (or never was) an option. If you think it is, you can try this as a first step to get things under control. Right now, it looks like the time for that has long passed (if it was ever there).
So, you need to start by rebuilding your reputation from scratch. Set the new ground rules. If they attack you as a person, make clear that this is what they do ("you just insulted me"). They are more likely than not to deny it, but if the attack is personal, insist that it is and that this is not an option and not acceptable, either, strictly no excuses. It's most effective if you do it very dispassionately, as if for a third party that you do not care about (think as if you were defending some neighbour from gossip which you see, but never talked to; that it happens to be yourself is of no consequence here). Importantly, establish their personal attack as a fact of the conversation. People like that do not like to be nailed down, as the fogginess of their grievance is their main tool to camouflage their agenda.
Explain that they are free to express any valid grievance *in writing* to you; explain also that you will try to take it seriously and address it if possible, mitigate its disadvantages if it is not. Sometimes, this is not possible at all, in which case, you tell them that they will have to live with the constraints. Your person, however, is not up for discussion. If they persist, you get up, say, "when you are again prepared to have a constructive and respectful discussion, we can continue." and leave.
I am not sure who threatens to cut you off from students if you fire them. This is something you have to find out. More likely than not, this is a bluff. However, if there is someone in the department that actually threatened you with this, find out from the upper echelons what your disciplinary options are with these candidates. Do not fear them talking to other students - the students that will be discouraged are the ones that you do not want to have on board, either. Others will like the fact that you have your group under control.
Scientifically, you can discuss goals with all your students, including them. But I would not give them substantially more time than to others. First, it is not a good investment, second, it is unfair to the others. You will, however, have to plan their agenda in the background, to more extent, so that you are meticulously prepared when you meet them. Meticulous preparation and indisputable competence is the strongest weapon against such people.
Good luck!
Summary:
1. build yourself into a situation where you distinguish between actionable/valid criticism and ad hominem. Accept the first, reject the second.
2. develop a dispassionate persona
3. develop a stricter, but always fair and predictable persona.
4. build up a more stringent cycle of planning and monitoring; as well as clearer intermediate targets (papers, posters, presentations)
5. learn what your formal options are if you continued being trolled by these disruptors
6. build up your competence and preparation levels for meetings with the problem candidates
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: These are students, not children. Take this as a teaching opportunity. If you feel their behavior is inappropriate tell them this and teach them why, listen to their concerns and set expectations for the future. Following that if their behavior continues you can ask them to continue their work in an environment they find more suitable to their needs.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: You already have some great answers here, but reading through them I don't see mention of "[motivational interviewing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivational_interviewing)" - an effective method (anchored on listening and reinforcing more than lecturing) for building trust, eliciting goals, reflecting on behavior, and helping the other person develop/reinforce behaviors & strategies aligned with those goals.
As a lab PI, I have used this method (initially unconsciously, based on experience as a physician), but then in a more informed way after seeing the mature literature on this topic.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/29
| 868
| 3,815
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a Phd student working in the areas of mathematical physics and biology. It is known that papers in pure and applied mathematics follow alphabetical ordering, and it does not matter if your name shows first or last. However, my supervisor told me that when it comes to particular areas of applied mathematics, such as mathematical physics or mathematical biology, there are as many authors who follow order by contributions as there are of those who follow alphabetical order. Based on these facts, my supervisor has told me that we will follow both approaches in our papers since ordering does not matter in mathematics anyway.
My name is ahead of my supervisor's alphabetically. However, for some papers, my supervisor was first. For other papers, I was first. This resulted in a mixed order in the publications listed on my CV. Does this alter its quality, meaning the recruiter will tend to not value papers in which I was a second author?<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest making two different lists of publications:
* one of publications that follow the alphabetical order (math. physics, I suppose)
* and one where the first authorship ~~shows who actually did all the work~~ matters (biology, I suppose).
You can add an explanation to the first category, explaining the authorship conventions in mathematics.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I am 15 years past my PhD, and work in the same areas: Applied Mathematics, Mathematical Physics, and Computational Chemistry.
On my CV, I list papers as "Title, Journal (with Co-Authors in alphabetical order)". I also add a link to [AMS Culture statement](https://%7Bhttp://www.ams.org/profession/leaders/culture/CultureStatement04.pdf) to explain why the author's list is alphabetical.
However, I must add, that the struggle is real, as this problem still bites me occasionally, when people casually ask me why all my papers are rarely first-authored, or make vague comments implying my application to X was not successful because my publication track may not be recognised by people from certain areas.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Many people working in applied mathematics (myself includes) use non-alphabetical author order -- and everyone in mathematics departments knows that that is common.
In practice, this means that when you are first author on a non-alphabetical author list, you get a minor bonus by people reading your CV. And that you get a minor malus (negative bonus) for those where you are not. For papers with alphabetically ordered author lists, nobody knows the better, and so you get an average weight.
In the end, it's not likely not matter very much overall one way the other. You can probably guard against ignorants by adding a note at the top of your list of publications saying that author order of your publications follows the convention of the field you are publishing in for any given paper, which may or may not be alphabetical.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: One option which seems workable to me is a variation on <NAME>' comment. List all your publications chronologically as (with X, Y, Z...), *but*
* have some clear way of indicating which papers for which you are first author (or joint first author), and
* have a different way of indicating papers that do not have a "first author".
Obviously the meanings of the symbols you use for this should be clearly set out above the list of papers.
I am assuming first author vs not is much more important than your exact position, but in some fields in might also be worth distinguishing "last author".
I should say that I am not really in this position, since I have very few papers in authors-by-contribution fields and am not first author on any of those. So I don't bother distinguishing them.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/06/29
| 1,292
| 5,402
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm used to the UK system, where it is common for PhDs to take on studentships, and supervision roles to supplement their funding while pursuing their PhD. I've been told this is not common in the US (where I will be completing my PhD). My institution regulates that we can only work for the university up to 20 hours per week, so finding another position within the institution is not possible. Would it be feasible to find part-time consulting jobs or something similar as a PhD student with experience in quantitative social science?<issue_comment>username_1: When universities do not pay a living wage, it means that students must find money from one of two sources: (1) parents and/or working spouse, or (2) extra work.
You mention that you have US citizenship, which helps a lot, since non-citizens can only get work within university walls.
Within university walls, these are typical sources of income:
1. TAing, which means teaching undergrads. Usually labs.
2. Research assistantships: a professor pays you with grant money to do research, that might be related or unrelated to your own research. For example: doing bench work at a wet lab, or conducting field surveys for a sociologist.
3. Working at student residencies, e.g., managing a floor of undergrads as a live-in supervisor (also called RAing). Sometimes the pay is just getting a free apartment, but in places like NYC, this perk alone is worth thousands a month.
4. Hourly paid work, e.g. library stacks, event hosting, catering, secretarial, etc.
There are some limitations on the jobs you can take as a student. You really need to check with your university.
Outside the university walls, these are some sources of income:
1. Consulting. I'm a Biologist and did several lucrative consulting gigs while in grad school. The difficult part is finding the clients, but the money is really good and the job is easy.
2. Writing. The industry pays well for technical writing tasks. A lot of it is ghostwriting for wealthy execs.
3. Teaching. For example, as an adjunct at another college. They usually prefer ABDs (all but dissertations) for this. This can be lucrative if the topic is not too far from your own field, as it reduces prep time.
4. Just regular jobs like barista, server, etc. Being a server seems to be popular, as tips can be substantial if you find the right restaurant. I worked for many years in the trades, and still do occasional work. It pays really well, but you must obviously have the required skills to start with. During my time as a grad student I met 3 other students who earned money through sex work (I think there was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed a few years ago about adjuncts doing sex work, but I can't find it now.) I don't think the latter is common, but just to show you the wide range of work grad students engage in.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: University finance person here. When you refer to a 20 hour restriction, this actually comes from the federal government. It has to do with classifying students as "non-employees". The idea is that the remainder of your time is spent on classwork. There are some benefits that can come from not being classed as an employee, administratively, so it's a common choice for institutions of higher education to do.
While you can in theory get additional work both in and out of your institution, please note that you need to disclose this to your PI. If the job is within your institution and you are being paid on federal grants, this will reduce your certifiable effort. The PI may not want to allow that, and that is their prerogative. Student funding is complex and at the end of the day, it is low, as you are not "full-time". Yes, you are engaged full-time, but it is partially to your benefit, which is why the government does not automatically consider students employees, and thus your pay only represents a partial effort.
Think of it another way. As a PI, is it more efficient to hire a fully trained postdoc or two grad students? Once you consider also paying tuition remission for the students (another form of compensation), grad students are already very costly given that they come untrained.
Start by discussing with your PI. There is no shame in having an open conversation, unless you convey you will lower your commitment to the PI. You are not the first to feel the pay cannot support you. I live in a major metropolitan area, and the students make close to what I got in my first job 13 years ago. However, when you add the tuition benefit, and the fact that they are untrained and unable to work "full-time", they cost more to support than you realize. Any PI who has written grant applications can explain how difficult it already is to support students.
Looking outside the institution will give you the most freedom. Staying within the institution will come with rules attached depending on your funding source. That may not be up to your PI. At my institution, grad student salaries are capped by the student union. There can be a lot in play that needs to be considered. [I should clarify that there is a restriction to 20 hrs on your *current position*. If you are not a foreign student, you can seek an additional job at the institution, e.g., washing glassware. This shouldn't count against the 20 hr restriction, but your institution's policy prevails.]
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/29
| 987
| 3,864
|
<issue_start>username_0: Please assume I have a direct quote that contains: "found in the neighborhood". I wish to use this as a direct quote in my paper.
My spelling checker flagged on "neighbourhood" since I am using Canadian English. If it was part of the citation I would use [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4857/how-to-approach-american-english-vs-british-english-spelling-in-a-paper/4858#4858). To avoid references to [other answers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/332/how-much-should-i-worry-about-british-spelling-when-submitting-to-a-u-k-journal), please assume that I have the best reasons possible to use Canadian English in my paper. If I change the quote to "found in the neighbourhood" did I translate this answer? I ask since [APA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_style) states that translation is considered a paraphrase and has rules to treat it differently.<issue_comment>username_1: Firstly, it is far from clear that choosing to use Canadian English in your paper actually commits you to changing non-Canadian spellings in quotations to Canadian spellings. A spell checker merely provides suggestions for you to consider. The idea that because a spell-checker highlighted the word it needs to be changed is false. The rest of the answer addresses the case where you have some other compelling reason to change spellings in quotations beyond the fact that it was suggested to you by a spell-checker.
The situation seems largely analogous to what you would do if the original quotation were, say, "foun in the neighborhood". You would presumably quote that as "foun[d] in the neighborhood", and no sane person would think of this as being a translation. Similarly, what you are in effect saying is that the spelling "neighborhood" is incorrect for the purposes of your paper. So the solution "found in the neighbo[u]rhood" seems to be the appropriate one if you insist on changing the spelling.
The question of why translations are handled differently than direct quotations is considered [here](https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/translations/):
>
> You may wonder why your translation is considered a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation. That’s because translation is both an art and a science—languages do not have perfect correspondences where every word and phrase matches up with a foreign equivalent, though of course some cases come closer than others. Even in the example passage above I considered how to translate “Les femmes dans des activités masculines”—taken word for word I might have written “Women in masculine activities,” but I thought “Women working in masculine fields” better conveyed the actual meaning, which relates to women working in male-dominated occupations.
>
>
>
Clearly this reasoning does not apply to trivial changes in spelling. Nonetheless, you should make it clear to the reader that you have in fact changed the spelling of the original quote.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: [Isaacg in the comments](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/197695/do-spelling-changes-count-as-translations-for-citations-when-using-different-eng#comment536375_197695) made an astute observation that I want to repeat here since it's an equally valid answer and comments may be deleted at any time:
>
> Generally, if you are using a direct quote, you should not change the content at all, except to add "[sic]" to mark that you are transcribing something exactly as it was found in the source text.
>
>
>
Put differently: what you can do is write "found in the neighborhood [sic]", with [sic] being the accepted standard in academical quotations to indicate that you are using this quote verbatim, including any spelling mistakes, grammatical errors or regional dialect idiosyncracies from the original author's message.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/30
| 1,624
| 6,935
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm aware this is similar to questions which have been asked previously (e.g. [this question about PhD supervisor requests](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/132057/do-i-have-any-obligations-to-my-phd-supervisors-requests-after-i-have-graduated)), however I believe due to the specific nature of the supervisor-student relationship in this case it differs enough to be a valid question in its own right.
Last week I submitted my PhD thesis. One of the chapters was based on work which hasn't been published, and my supervisor has been asking me to work on this now to get this finished off, and I'm not sure if I have an obligation to do so.
On one hand, the work in this chapter is quite interesting and new stuff. My supervisor thinks it could go in quite a highly rated journal. I've put a lot of effort into it, and I think it would make for an interesting paper.
On the other hand, this is a paper which I have been working on for the past three years, without very much feedback from my supervisor. I've sent them about 6-7 drafts, including about 3 full rewrites (I'd write it, they wouldn't read it, and then they'd decide it should go in a different journal with different style, rinse and repeat), but I've only had feedback from them on it once. On another paper, which effectively disproved one of their pet projects (the paper is now published), this supervisor didn't read the paper or provide any feedback for a year while simultaneously belittling me with passive aggressive comments about it. This continued until they finally read the paper, and realised that they were actually wrong.
Where it gets complicated is to do with my thesis. From previous PhD students, I was aware that this supervisor tended to leave giving feedback on theses to the last few days, if at all. I suggested to them that I could finish my thesis early (~3 months before submission), and then work on finishing this project after the thesis was ready. While this did mean that they read my thesis earlier than they had with previous students, they only began to give me feedback 1-2 months before submission (on a draft I sent 4 months prior to submission), which meant that in completing these changes I haven't been left with enough time to finish off the project.
We are the only two authors on the paper (so there's no obligation to other co-authors who have put work in), and my new job is not in academia (so the publication is unlikely to directly aid my own career). They haven't given any feedback on the current draft of the paper, so I do not know how much work would be needed to finish it off.
Ideally I would prefer not to work on it to have a clean break, and in my opinion this paper could have been published had my supervisor actually read it and provided feedback during my PhD. It feels to me that my supervisor has essentially caused me a great deal of stress over the past years by providing very little feedback and effectively leaving me on my own\*, just to wait until the end and then expect me to do unpaid work for her once I've left.
Do I have an obligation to continue with this project? Am I at any risk if I say no in terms of my viva/graduation (this is in the UK system)?
Thank you
\*In the sense that I enjoy working on my own independently -- I have no problem with that. But then once I've written a paper independently, to then have to wait years to get any feedback on it seems excessive.<issue_comment>username_1: Let's start with the "my supervisor has been asking me to work on this now to get this finished off" and take it from there.
It is clear that this will not benefit you in the long run, given that you are not continuing in academia. Between the lines, it also reads as if you do really care about your work and the science, so you should see this as having an impact on the world all by itself, aside from all the politics and interactions with your supervisor.
If you had continued in academia my answer would have been different, I think, but I think in this case you can be very clear about what you can and cannot do.
If, as you write, your supervisor tends to leave everything to the last minute and you to fend for yourself, then clearly you can take the lead here.
There are two options:
1. You decide that you are not going to contribute. In that case, leave your data with your supervisor but do them a favor and make sure it's all properly annotated so they can finish the paper without ever having to contact you again, in theory.
2. You decide that you want to give this one last shot for science sake. Make an overview of work that needs to be done. Indicate what you can and cannot do before and after your contract ends. Set a time frame for yourself (say: no more than 3 or 6 months after you've left the lab). Then have a meeting with your supervisor and agree on an approach and schedule. Stick to your end of the deal and then, if your supervisor is unresponsive and doesn't stick to their promises: drop the project with a clean conscience, knowing that this may someday or never get published.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Oh, man I feel for you. It's the most annoying thing to be pushed to write papers and then only receive last minute feedback. And it's just salt to the wound when the feedback is obviously the result of a cursory reading of the paper, e.g. only typos and formatting are noted.
I have no more insights into the mind of your supervisor than you do, but this is what it looks like to me: he wants the paper but does not want to write it. This is typical behavior of chronic procrastinators. If you drag your feet long enough, someone else will pick up your slack and get the job done. It's bad enough when the procrastinator works under you, but the worst when he is your boss. You can't just issue demands and deadlines.
Another possibility, one that happened to me, is that the supervisor has someone new in the group that he wants to pick up the project after you. He might have promised this new person a quick paper by publishing your results since you are not going to continue in academia. So he's just waiting you out, but making disingenuous demands that you finish the paper so that you formally give up.
In either case, the best strategy is to move on. You are under no obligation to finish the papers under the current conditions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Key point here is "your new job is outside academia".
If you were still in academia I would say yes, finish it at minimum cost for you, as research would still be part of your job, but as it is very much not your job you have absolutely no obligation
You may evaluate whether you may want to continue having a working relationship with this supervisor in case you want to go back in the future, and in that case definitely publish the paper, but it doesn't look like you do.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/06/30
| 906
| 3,799
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m aiming for a BA degree. Basically, I’m taking classes for a AS degree in Computer science and AA, but now I’m nervous since I don’t know the answer for: will both of my AS degrees transfer to a 4? Should I just focus on a AA degree? Am I losing time and money? Especially since I’m going to have 2 AS.<issue_comment>username_1: Let's start with the "my supervisor has been asking me to work on this now to get this finished off" and take it from there.
It is clear that this will not benefit you in the long run, given that you are not continuing in academia. Between the lines, it also reads as if you do really care about your work and the science, so you should see this as having an impact on the world all by itself, aside from all the politics and interactions with your supervisor.
If you had continued in academia my answer would have been different, I think, but I think in this case you can be very clear about what you can and cannot do.
If, as you write, your supervisor tends to leave everything to the last minute and you to fend for yourself, then clearly you can take the lead here.
There are two options:
1. You decide that you are not going to contribute. In that case, leave your data with your supervisor but do them a favor and make sure it's all properly annotated so they can finish the paper without ever having to contact you again, in theory.
2. You decide that you want to give this one last shot for science sake. Make an overview of work that needs to be done. Indicate what you can and cannot do before and after your contract ends. Set a time frame for yourself (say: no more than 3 or 6 months after you've left the lab). Then have a meeting with your supervisor and agree on an approach and schedule. Stick to your end of the deal and then, if your supervisor is unresponsive and doesn't stick to their promises: drop the project with a clean conscience, knowing that this may someday or never get published.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Oh, man I feel for you. It's the most annoying thing to be pushed to write papers and then only receive last minute feedback. And it's just salt to the wound when the feedback is obviously the result of a cursory reading of the paper, e.g. only typos and formatting are noted.
I have no more insights into the mind of your supervisor than you do, but this is what it looks like to me: he wants the paper but does not want to write it. This is typical behavior of chronic procrastinators. If you drag your feet long enough, someone else will pick up your slack and get the job done. It's bad enough when the procrastinator works under you, but the worst when he is your boss. You can't just issue demands and deadlines.
Another possibility, one that happened to me, is that the supervisor has someone new in the group that he wants to pick up the project after you. He might have promised this new person a quick paper by publishing your results since you are not going to continue in academia. So he's just waiting you out, but making disingenuous demands that you finish the paper so that you formally give up.
In either case, the best strategy is to move on. You are under no obligation to finish the papers under the current conditions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Key point here is "your new job is outside academia".
If you were still in academia I would say yes, finish it at minimum cost for you, as research would still be part of your job, but as it is very much not your job you have absolutely no obligation
You may evaluate whether you may want to continue having a working relationship with this supervisor in case you want to go back in the future, and in that case definitely publish the paper, but it doesn't look like you do.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/01
| 585
| 2,426
|
<issue_start>username_0: I currently work in a small 4-year college and wanted to hear from people who have been part of the hiring process for tenure track faculty in mid rank R1 institues in the US.
What makes a candidate competitive these days in terms of (but not limited to ) the following:
1. Publications (both number of publications & citation)
2. Past grants
3. Having or not having previous post docs.
4. Previous Teaching experience
5. Diversity of Publications.
6. Conference Presentations
7. References<issue_comment>username_1: I can't answer in general (other than in general terms) but I can give advice for someone in your position. R1 universities, even mid-range ones are primarily *research* institutions, though they have a varied mission, especially if they are state universities.
But the main questions that will be asked of you and evaluated in your application to such a place is how will you fit into their research program. Some people do that by having some unique practice and experience and others by fitting into an existing research group. You will need to deal with that. Your 1, 2, 6, and 7 are probably the most important sort of factors.
I suspect that your current institution is very different in that regard (though not all are). And, if you can potentially *lead* a research group that will be attractive to doctoral students, all the better.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends a whole lot on the university, department, and even specific committee. Here is your list with some things crossed out (almost never relevant) and some added in bold:
1. Publications (both number of publications & citation)
2. Past grants
3. ~~Having or not having previous post docs.~~ **Evidence of creativity and potential in previous research experience. (Almost without exception, successful candidates have postdoctoral experience.)**
4. ~~Previous Teaching experience~~
5. ~~Diversity of Publications~~
6. ~~Conference Presentations~~**Invited presentations (conferences and colloquia)**
7. References
8. **Alignment with departmental research priorities**
9. **Race and Gender**
10. **Past activity with regard to "diversity, equity, and inclusion"**
Everything in this list is usually somewhat relevant, and sometimes very relevant. Personally I care almost entirely about 3 and 7. For recent hires in physics at the University of Arizona it has been mostly 3, 7, 8.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/01
| 1,396
| 6,234
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I had a PhD interview for a very good university in Europe. The application was for the School of Mathematics, as I posses a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Pure Mathematics.
During the inteview I was quite nervous as it was a new experience for me and the questions posed were only of technical flavour. Questions about my thesis and a project that I concluded during my studies were asked. I was unable to answer most of the questions, as a lot of time had passed since I did my project and thesis, almost 6 months for the last one. After the interview though, as I calmed down, I realized that the answers to the questions were very easy to produce, though the questions were not at all trivial.
I should mention that a potential advisor commented on my thesis, saying that it was the first time he saw a master student write a thesis covering so much material and with such depth. Moreover, in my thesis I speculate about a potential connection between two theories. A thought that turned out to have some merit as some time later a publication appeared describing somewhat the same connection, (not by me).
Taking the above into consideration, I would like to ask wether the fact that I did not answer to the posed questions could be detrimental for my application. That is, if someone experienced a similar situation.
In case of rejection I would consider applying for US universities, though I will have to wait for a year. Do you think this will have a negative impact on such applications?<issue_comment>username_1: It could well negatively impact your current application. But it mostly speaks to lack of preparation for the interview and the fact that you haven't thought of those things for a while.
But for the future, it need not be an issue, provided that you spend some time preparing to answer questions that are likely to arise. That certainly includes your own work, but also general things in your field, including some recent developments.
You also need a way to deflect such questions if you aren't prepared. You can, at least, give the background required for an answer, or a framework in which to answer it. But, that, too, requires some preparation. Don't go in blind.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As stated in one of the comments, it really depends on the university policy. At some universities, the interview is just a pro forma step. In that is the case, your prospective advisor already has you admitted based on your thesis, or the department already admitted you based on a points system. At other universities, all the other stuff is pro forma and only the good word from a potential advisor will get you in. If that is the case, then yes of course your failure to answer questions will likely be detrimental to your application. But the deed is done and there's no point in fretting about it. Just wait to hear from them.
Putting that to the side, being nervous is natural and forgivable, but what is less forgivable is to come unprepared to an interview. I interview lots of candidates, and there's an obvious difference between a candidate who prepared but is shaking nervous, and a candidate that is nervous because they were caught off guard by a question we were obviously going to ask. I have my tricks to calm down prepared but nervous candidates and thus help them do better on the interview. After all, we all want the best candidate, not the best interviewee.
As for applying to the US, having been previously rejected by another university will have no effect on your candidacy. Being unprepared to interviews will have the same effect.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Why don't you contact them now via email stating that you were nervous/forgetful and provide an explanation to their questions? Irrespective of the outcome of the interview they might have been genuinly interested in your work. And they might still appreciate an answer. Also, it is always good to not leave any question marks around your research work.
Also a slight different perspective from the other answers: forgetting details about a project of yours or part of your work does not mean you were unprepared. People present in conferences very specific projects that they recently completed and forget details. It is still the work that you completed and maybe moved on to something else.
So, I would follow up via email, which is the expected behaviour if someone asks you a question that you can't answer on the spot. Again, irrespective of the outcome of the interview.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have said, this will depend on the country/university.
Let me offer a perspective from a position where the interview is directly related to whether you are offered a position or not. In those cases, you may be interested to know that quite often it is easy to discriminate between applicants who still know what they did a few months earlier and who can provide a coherent story with a bit of enthusiasm and those who cannot. The second category, I am sorry to say, is out.
This doesn't mean that the candidates themselves (or you in this case) would not be capable of doing a PhD or would even have been the right person for this position, but it does mean that these abilities and fit did not come across during the interview.
It's not a perfect selection mechanism (and suddenly shouldn't be - and typically isn't the only thing that is being evaluated), but what you are looking for in young researchers about to embark on a PhD is a spark and enthusiasm for research (which typically comes across when people talk about their prior work - or not) and their technical and conceptual comprehension of what they worked on before with the ability to also relay that to others - after all, this person will need to drive their own research project for the next few years which will require self-motivation and the ability to learn new things and integrate them over time into a larger scientific concept plus the ability to discuss science with others is at the core of doing science.
So if this was due to a lack of preparation from your end, do better next time to show that you've got the chops.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/01
| 579
| 1,964
|
<issue_start>username_0: My PhD contract is about to end soon. I got a postdoc position in the Netherlands after that but I don't have the PhD degree yet. Which salary step will I get in scale 10?<issue_comment>username_1: Note that a postdoc position in general requires a PhD. If all you are missing is some bureaucratic paper work you should talk to them but probably this will have no effect on your salary and they will just pay you the same as if you already have the PhD.
If however your PhD still requires a few months of work and is not actually finished yet you need to carefully check whether the offer for a postdoc position is still valid at all. In that case you want a PhD student position and that is not the same as a postdoc position.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You ask
>
> Which salary step will I get in scale 10?
>
>
>
Although the salary scale for the Collective Agreement of Dutch Universities (CAO) is *fixed*, the step (*trede*) a postdoc would be placed on scale 10 is not ***constant***.
It depends on numbers of factors: one is the [years of experience](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/63972/how-are-years-of-experience-counted-for-determining-level-on-salary-scale-for-a).
Though *fixed*, yet negotiable! ([more of the PI](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/23797/162770) though getting you on 'higher' steps).
Depending on where you are with the PhD and whether your PhD status will count or not, you might be looking at **10(3)** or **10(4)**.
Even at that, it's best to get clarity from the PI and/or HR. I'll rather go the route of '*negotiating*' with the PI.
Following might be worthwhile
* [In the Dutch salary system, how do the "steps" ("trede") work?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/138722/in-the-dutch-salary-system-how-do-the-steps-trede-work)
* [Salary, collective labour agreement](https://www.wur.nl/en/jobs/tailor-made-conditions-of-employment.htm)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/01
| 327
| 1,422
|
<issue_start>username_0: More specifically, for mathematics journals. Would a publication in [Qeios](https://www.qeios.com/) disqualify a paper from also being published in a traditional mathematics journal?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know about the site you name, but math journals are quite understanding in general about prior publication of in-process papers. This is quite different from some other fields, though many others are coming around to the same policies. But, each journal will have its own policies on preprint publication.
Mathematicians are generally happy when they see results early on which, I'll guess, has led to this situation.
But as noted in the comments, publishing in junk journals or websites isn't a good sign about the quality of the paper. You still need to meet the standards of editors and reviewers. to be formally published.
And, if the consider themselves to be an "open access" journal, then it isn't the same as a preprint server, so many publishers, even in math, might decide it has been previously "published" not just something something something, that isn't quite publishing. Prior to arXiv the world was a bit clearer about what was publishing and what wasn't.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It's unclear; some may consider it a journal, some may not. I suggest not to take the risk; it seems they offer no advantages over Arxiv.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/07/02
| 2,186
| 9,015
|
<issue_start>username_0: I struggle with people, communication, and trust. I managed to publish a few papers as a PhD student (with the guidance of my PhD advisor, obviously), but since then I've failed to publish a single paper. It's been 4 years.
At this point, I'm fairly convinced that I'm a ***complete idiot***, but now it's too late for me to change my career trajectory. That is, I ***need to*** publish in order to hold my current job (that of an assistant professor). I'm honestly clueless about how to accomplish that.
(For more context, my field is theoretical computer science.)
The problem is that I'm not smart enough to solve research-level problems on my own, and therefore I need collaborations to be able to publish anything. Now you could argue that I didn't belong in academia, and I'd wholeheartedly agree, except that it's too late for me to go do something else. (Let's just say, visa issues are also involved, in addition to my advanced age.)<issue_comment>username_1: There is a lot to unpack here. Let me see if I can suggest some options.
First, you may be suffering from [Imposter Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome) and are more competent than you give yourself credit for. You might be able to find a counselor to help with this. Earning a doctorate is usually proof enough of your ability.
Second, You may be working alone now and that alone makes research progress difficult. You need to find some collaborators to work with even if you don't publish joint papers. Discussions about technical issues can move your thought processes forward. One way to develop such relationships is to attend conferences and talk to people (see below). In the internet age, keeping in contact with people is pretty easy. At large research institutions this is less likely since there are often groups with similar interests. You might be able to form such a topic-oriented group if it doesn't exist. This is also helpful for doctoral students at your institution if they exist.
Third, you don't have to remain "unsocial". Social skills can be learned like any other, through practice. It may feel weird at first, but the more you do it, the easier it gets. I have a history of this and it came close to costing me a degree since I didn't speak up when it was necessary to do so and would have changed my trajectory. It took a long time, but few think of me as introverted any more. But it took recognition of the problem and its effects as well as (difficult) practice. Just. Do. It.
Fourth, depending on a few other things, it is possible to have a fulfilling career and a happy life without publishing. Teaching colleges (in the US especially) put a much higher emphasis on teaching and work with students than they do on advancing the state of the art. Any publishing is a bonus in such places, but not publishing doesn't normally hold people back. I've had excellent teachers who didn't publish. This is harder at a research institution, of course, where publishing is normally expected. So, you might be in the wrong position if it is teaching that you love above research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Is there a possibility to change the focus of your work from theoretical computer science to more applied problems? These kind of work then will not require strong mathematical skills, only some creativity and hard work to implement things.
Yet, for this type of work you should be able to attract and collaborate with students, so some social skills are required.
Does your university have a psychologist/counselor that you can talk to regarding your concerns with your social skills. They might be able to provide more concrete solutions or even some sort of soft skills training.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to excellent comments above, I would also suggest that you be realistic. If your university has tenure requirements that includes number of publications as a criterion, you might have to face some serious choices soon. It might not be a bad idea to start looking for alternatives. There are many great teaching-focused schools where the criteria for success is not publications. If you go up for tenure in next year or two, start looking around.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: There are a couple of false assumptions in your question. Let's start looking at them:
>
> At this point, I'm fairly convinced that I'm a complete idiot
>
>
>
The world is full of idiots. However, not being able to keep on with research is not /equal to being an idiot, nor being a succesful researcher is a discriminant for idiotness.
>
> but now it's too late for me to change my career trajectory
>
>
>
This is false, but you need to work a bit on this. Given your difficulties in other fields, you need to work on this, but I am fairly sure you need to work *less* to be "market-ready" than what you would need to be "academia-ready".
>
> I'm not smart enough to solve research-level problems on my own, and
> therefore I need collaborations to be able to publish anything.
>
>
>
Here you face two problems:
* reality check nr.1: many of the people that are succesful in publishing alone are simply cutting corners and exploiting other people's work. To use your language: they are idiots, but of the *other kind* of idiots;
* reality check nr.2: a research collaboration works more as "independent people are somehow forced (not necessarily in a friendly way) to work together towards a common goal". It is very rare to have a real team-working style.
Then there is a hard question for you: most of the people on the planet Earth need a job to survive and are struggling to do so, either to just have a job or to get on with a badly paid, unstimulating job. Why cannot you give a try to the shitty side of life of not doing what you want to but what you need to?
You can sure recycle yourself in the private world, your field is very close to the needs of many industries, but you need to do all the efforts to understand what they want. You may lack the skills required to stay in the academia, but you surely do have the skills to get a job.
P.s.: if you are in the US, since you mention visa&co, please keep in mind that age is much less relevant than you think.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> At this point, I'm fairly convinced that I'm a complete idiot, but now it's too late for me to change my career trajectory. That is, I need to publish in order to hold my current job (that of an assistant professor). I'm honestly clueless about how to accomplish that.
>
>
>
Firstly, this sounds to me as a classical case of an [Imposter syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome), which is rather common in academia, where smart people are constantly in contact with many other smart or even smarter people. I am not going to play a psychologist to you, but you can read more about this and find easy proofs that your current position probably proves that you are far from being an *"idiot"*.
On the other hand, sober evaluation of your perspectives and predispositions for academic career is in order. People do quit academia and find happy life, do outstanding contributions to science, and even return to academia at much higher level. All this is not visible, if you have spent all your life in Universities, talking to other people who have spent their lives in academia.
However, I would warn against thinking that getting a job in industry is a walk in a park, paved by dollars - it actually may turn to be quite a struggle, not easier than the struggles for positions, grants and awards in academia.
However, what might be easier for you personally, is that "in the open" your advancement would be less dependent on your communication abilities: finding collaborators, making friends with important people and grant managers, etc. (Provided that your communication abilities are good enough to answer questions in a job interview, avoid insulting your co-workers, etc.)
>
> The problem is that I'm not smart enough to solve research-level problems on my own, and therefore I need collaborations to be able to publish anything. Now you could argue that I didn't belong in academia, and I'd wholeheartedly agree, except that it's too late for me to go do something else. (Let's just say, visa issues are also involved, in addition to my advanced age.)
>
>
>
It is never late to explore other opportunities, especially if the failure of your plan A seems more and more certain. Also, returning to your home country might be not as bad as you think after being away for several years - sure, life is not everywhere as comfortable and easy as in North America or Western Europe, but it is quite bearable in most places (and if it is really unbearable, then applying for a refugee status should be in the cards.) You may also consider going to a third country and relaunching your career elsewhere, perhaps in a less prestigious institution, but still...
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/02
| 1,136
| 4,543
|
<issue_start>username_0: Of course, the no-brainer is using chatGPT. I have done something atrocious and unjustified. I realize that I have made a massive mistake after handing in my own assignment. I wrote a thesis with one section from chatGPT copy-paste (the dumbest). In a few days, my thesis will be analyzed through Turnitin by my supervisor, and I already feel a plagiarism accusation coming. Understandably, I should be punished for my wrongdoings. I just hope my university does not punish me too hard for plagiarism. Under the board of examiners there are multiple penalties regarding a reprimand, a void grade (NG or fail) in the assignment, suspension for the upcoming period (so a one-year delay), or the worst (getting expelled).
Obviously, I cannot deny my act, and I will take full responsibility. I just want to learn from my wrongdoings and hope to obtain a second chance. I have no control over the verdict of the board. I just want to learn from this action and plead for a more lenient sentence.
Does anyone have tips or guidance on what to do?
*edit* when worse comes to worst, I will consider asking a lawyer to aid me<issue_comment>username_1: This is the basic problem: the minute that there is a predictable way to avoid punishment, the deterrent effect of the punishment disappears. So there is not, and should not be, an obvious, easy and predictable way to avoid punishment.
You have two obvious choices: to 'fess up and hope for a lesser punishment, or to wait and see if they actually catch you. From the perspective of those of us who administer punishment to students who cheat, we are always inclined to be less severe with those who confess. Part of this is that by encouraging confessions, we hope to not create an environment where it's always to students' advantage to wait and see if they are caught. But if, again, it becomes predicable that we will be very lenient with those that confess, then what we encourage is cheating followed by confession with increased expectations of leniency. And maximum leniency is no disciplinary action, and that just brings us back to the basic problem of deterrence. The comparison group is not those that did not confess, but those who did not cheat. Are we being fair to those who did the work themselves? That's the question.
You mention that you are really sorry, and that you just want to learn from your lesson. The problem is that you are likely lying to yourself, not on purpose, but still. Let me assure you that 100% of the time I am lenient to a cheating student, they do it again, only that this time they assure me that they are not 100% sure, but 1,000% sure they'll never to it again. We don't want to punish students, we want them to stop cheating. Thus, the only way to reach our true goal is to administer a punishment that "hurts." Hurts in the sense that it creates enough discomfort and regret, that it prevents the act form happening again.
If you really want to stop yourself from doing this again, then confess and accept whatever disciplinary action they take against you. It has the added benefit that it might bring, albeit not guarantee, leniency.
Last, try to keep a balance between feeling bad for what you did, and overdoing the self-recrimination. Cheating is academia is rampant and widespread. Before LMLs came about, it was Chegg, and before Chegg, it was paying Internet "tutors" to do the work for you, and so on. Only the technology has made it easier to cheat, but I really doubt that students in the 80s where less inclined to cheat: they just didn't have the technology, or were never caught (look at how many theses from famous people are being found to be plagiarized now that automatic tools are available.) There's plenty of guilt to go around: from professors who never check for plagiarism or just test for things that can be answered with a quick Google search, to ever-lenient administrators never wanting to "punish" a paying customer, to a general devaluation from students about what constitutes an education. We are trying to *train* you here, so please, do the training exercises. Like I ask my students caught cheating: Do you also pay someone to go to the gym for you?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Now is the time for damage control as soon as possible.
If possible, withdraw your assignment immediately. Naturally, this will result in not getting a grade, because you will have missed the assignment deadline. This is very likely less bad than the penalty for plagiarism or cheating.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/02
| 507
| 2,164
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to apply for a physics PhD in the fall of 2024.
I have trouble finalizing the main research area to mention in SOP because I am interested both in HEP experiments and theory.
Suppose I wrote my interest in hep experiment in SOP, but after being being admitted to grad school,, I got attracted to hep theory.. Can I choose a a hep theory group to research?
Or vice versa?
Do I have this freedom in grad school,, or should I think more carefully and write it in SOP?<issue_comment>username_1: This will vary. If you are funded by one group it might be difficult to move to another. If you are funded generally by the department, say as a TA, then it is easier and requires the agreement of the leaders of both groups, though the one you are entering is most important.
Leaving a group and leaving essential work undone can also be limiting, so you want to avoid that.
Group PIs would much rather have enthusiastic members of course, so it is probably possible.
But yes, your SOP should be well thought out. It is (IMO) OK to list more than one interest, especially if the application is to the department and not directly to a PI. It can even be advantageous depending on whether different groups have different needs that you don't know about.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It’s Ok to mention two areas of interest in your SOP. But I will strongly recommend to start doing your research immediately in terms of the what you would want to do. Changing groups can lead to wastage of a semester in some cases. Some programs allow the first semester students to come in and try out different groups and then make their final decision. Other schools may not have this as an option. Beyond the research interest you might also want to investigate the job potential, group culture, advisors personality (as compared to your personality), kind of jobs that you will get after graduating. You are going to spend 4-5 years in the program and your life trajectory will depend partially on this choice. I will do my homework carefully and think beyond just the topic of choice but other factors as well. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/02
| 2,506
| 10,730
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am asking on behalf of a friend who is in their second year of their PhD in the US. This month, without any notice or warning, their stipend is reduced by two-third (normal stipend is $2300, now is $725, which is way below minimum wage).
This had happened before but never at this extreme rate. In the past, the PI had reduced all PhD students' stipends by $100-200 for a few months due to lack of budgets (sometimes with notice, other times without notice). This month, my friend asked another PhD student in the same lab if their stipend was reduced and it turned out that the other PhD student's stipend was reduced by only $200 while my friend's was cut by almost $1600.
In the beginning of summer, the PI was not pleased with the direction of my friend's research idea and threatened that he would stop supporting their PhD if there is no better research idea or progress. However, in the most recent meeting with the PI (2 weeks ago), both were happy with the new research direction and the PI didn't mention the earlier threat anymore. My friend also just submitted a manuscript for another paper so they were very surprised (and sad, and anxious) about the sudden cut of stipend.
My friend emailed the PI and the associate director but hasn't gotten any reply. Who should my friend contact about their situation (department dean, program director, graduate director)? Is there any legal action they can take? They don't really want to escalate the situation but this is honestly unacceptable. They are also international student so they are not sure if legal action even is an option. If this continues, they plan to just take a few more courses in the Fall and graduate with a non-thesis master and go somewhere else. Is there anyway they can seek assistance from the school if the PI refuse to pay for tuition in the Fall?<issue_comment>username_1: The answer really depends on the school and what the student was offered during admission. These days, it is common for US universities to offer a guaranteed 5-year stipend, with the money staying constant. Now, the way advisors and/or departments get around it is by saying that the money will come from a combination of teaching and grant funds, then expect students to support themselves through teaching alone. That is, the guarantee is a guarantee that students will be offered a teaching spot, not a guarantee of string-free money to spend time on research. So it could very well be that your friend is being cut from the unrestricted salary money, not teaching money, and that they now have to teach. If that's the case, then it's time to learn Power Point and join the club.
Given that it's the start of the summer, another possibility is that your friend was promised semester funding, either from a TA or RA source, but no summer funding. Then what the advisor is doing is funding some students but not others during the summer with RAs. It's not common, but I've seen some labs in which grad students were expected to leave during the summer. Some went on extended vacations, others went to their parents' house to catch up with thesis writing, etc. international students be dammed (I was not an international student, but could not afford plane tickets anyway.)
More about the issue of advisors picking and choosing whom to give summer funding: there are good, bad, and ugly reasons to do this.
Good reasons: when funding is limited, say the advisor only has enough for 1 summer stipend, they can choose to pay a student who is taking care of an experiment that needs year-long care, e.g. feeding animals, or they might prefer to fund their star student, someone who is about to finish and writing important papers, someone who takes extra tasks in the lab, e.g. equipment maintenance, etc. They might also prioritize students who have children. Bad reasons include pleasing students who threaten to leave if not paid the summer stipend, and the advisor deciding to give them the money instead of someone more deserving, or distributing the money equitably among students. Ugly reasons include the coward's way of dealing with problems, e.g. avoiding a confrontation with an underperforming student and instead cutting off his funding with the hopes he/she will go melt and go away. Note that international students are notoriously vulnerable to exploitation, as visa requirements require full-time student status. So it's just too easy for unscrupulous advisors to cut off international students from funding, as they are the ones who are not able to find part-time work outside of the university, and thus have no leverage.
Regardless of the reason, there is a real failure of communication from the advisor's side. I wonder how the advisor would take it if the admin cut HIS salary 2/3rds without notice, regardless of how justified the admin felt.
Now, if the advisor is cutting stipend money AND there are no opportunities for your friend to make money through a TA/RA job, then they should go to the director of graduate studies, the office of financial aid, etc. (whatever they are called at their institution) and plead their case. No department wants a reputation of being the place where grad students can be cut off from funding for arbitrary reasons (they do it all the time; they just try to avoid the reputation of doing that.)
Always keep in mind that if your friend is not making good academic progress, *as determined by the advisor*, all bets are off.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In terms on who to contact, in some cases each department has Director of Graduate Education (DOGE). They will be the best person to contact to better understand the policy if financial aid. These policies vary from school to school and lab to lab. If you don’t have a DOGE, dep chair will be another option. Just remember, in most cases, PI reserves the right to remove you from a research project (thus completely eliminate RA funding). They definitely have to meet minimum wage requirements irrespective of the department. So find out how many hours are they paying for, atleast you can threaten to look for other jobs.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Kind of adding to what @cheery.beach7701 said.
If it is Summer specific, then a couple of legit scenarios come to mind.
The student is normally supported by TA/RA but in this specific scenario seems to be supported by RA (explains why PI can adjust salary). In that case:
1. Non-Summer (previous cases) times when there was a salary adjustment. The PI adjusted their salary. Departments, even within the same school have different stipend requirements. These are the minimum requirements, for a lot of public schools (some of the ones I know) they can be even $1600 or $1800. Then some advisors while giving RA try to give more by topping it off maybe by 10-15% (Havent seen a more generous advisor yet). Since RA has no cap, your advisor can choose to give you whatever money (more, not less than that minimum amount) they want (the department might raise an eyebrow...). Now it seems he was doing that and when he doesn't have money he just takes away that leeway and sticks with the minimum (seems this school might have around $2100 as a minimum, judging form the post).
2. Now this is all well and good, but all employments (including tenure track professorships, nontenure track is diff...) come with 9 months of employment. Hence that 3 months of summer, either Prof's want their students to go do internships or whatever they want (since otherwise they will have to pay them from their own pocket/grant, which they also use for their own salary at that time). A lot of Prof's dont want that, hence the extended holiday/internship encouragement etc. In some schools you can be supported by getting a summer TA with reduced course enrollment. And some profs if they ave grant will support you through RA.
In this case, it seems point 2 is at play if this is summer-specific. He probably doesnt have fund to pay for summer hence reduced pay. But some schools also cut you off from summer enrollment without a RA/TA in summer, hence maybe he is paying.
Whatever it is, in my limited experience it always is crucial to talk to your PI about summer plans by January/february so you can plan internship etc.
*Completely written from my conjecture.
And I am an International Student myself. So with that perspective*
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Finance person here who handles payroll. The first thing you need to consider is that it could be a mistake. One of the crazy but common things we see is that people are paid incorrectly and never say anything, often for months. This is even true of faculty. Before assuming the worst, find a department administrator and ask who handles payroll. Finances and appointments are complex and mistakes happen, even at prestigious universities.
Second, in terms of legality, there may not be any minimum wage. Institutions of higher education individually determine if their students are employees or not. If your institution determines that students are trainees, there is no minimum wage to consider because some of the student activities are determined to be educational. You may be able to determine this by researching your school's financial policies.
Finally, in terms of school policy for lowering the salary, you should understand if you are admitted by the PI or the school. The department or school may have minimums that are guaranteed, and faculty are then restricted on who they can admit based on funding. However, if your school classifies grad students as trainees, no payment is required and is simply customary.
Find the department administrator and ask about the payroll. It is important not to blame people for the mistake. Most of these folks are overworked and get very little help. If it is an error, I'm sure they will be highly embarrassed and eager to fix it. Check your payroll every month and say something as soon as you see an error.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: This is school specific, but many schools have internal rules about what minimum stipends must be. This is a stipend not a wage though.
Unfortunately it is not unknown for professors to do stuff like this with complete disregard for what the university rules are.
As to point of contact, I'd try the graduate office / graduate director, try and find out what the rules for your school are. The admission letter may also be relevant.
Id very strongly advise looking for another advisor, as someone who pulls this kind of stunt is probably not someone you want to be working with. Being 3 years into the phd and the advisor having no money to pay you is going to be a bad situation
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/02
| 603
| 2,409
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just graduated in May this year (2023), and in my last semester of senior year, I was caught cheating on an exam and have academic dishonesty on my record, and I'm trying to apply for accelerated nursing schools for 2024/2025. If the application on NursingCAS does not ask you about past institutional actions, do I need to address them? It is not on my transcript but in my internal records. Though, if asked, I will be honest. I want to understand when to disclose it. If I disclose it, do I need to provide all the details of how I cheated or just the cheating, what led to it, and what I learned from it? (i.e., in April of 2023, I was caught cheating on an exam.) I was also told this is not on my public records, just locked up, and only if the law asks will they provide this information.<issue_comment>username_1: No, you don't need to volunteer such things. If the university at which this happens considers it a closed issue then you should too unless you are asked. Then, I suggest you be honest in answering.
But, as with many human failings, it is good to let the past be the past. Presumably your university applied whatever punishment they thought appropriate, so you should let it go.
And hopefully you have learned, and practice, better behavior. Especially in a health related field.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree that if the form doesn't ask, you're not required to volunteer it. However:
*Everyone* who cheats says they regret it and they learned their lesson and they would never do it again. And it's almost always a lie. The only thing they regret is getting caught.
You have an opportunity here to volunteer truthful information that could harm you, and there would be no consequences if you chose not to do so. I wouldn't even say that you're ethically required to volunteer the information; this would be above and beyond. But you say you're a better person now? This is a chance to prove it, if you so desire.
I'm not advising that you definitely do this. Being as honest as possible is good, but there is a risk. You might mitigate the risk somewhat by including a clause stating that the records of the cheating aren't public, but that you felt you needed to admit it in the interest of honesty. It's still a bit above and beyond, but it makes it clear that you aren't just saying this out of fear of being caught again.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/07/02
| 1,182
| 4,888
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently graduated with a PhD in biology and I'm staying in the same lab as a postdoc for a year. I need to look for postdoc positions elsewhere soon, so I need to update my CV. My CV from undergrad lists my undergrad honors, including Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, highest departmental honors from my first major, and valedictorian in my second major.
Now I wonder if the undergrad honors are still relevant, because I didn't feel like they meant much to my performance in graduate school, because except for the highest departmental honors which requires research, the other honors come from grades, while grades no longer matter so much in graduate school and beyond. Research is very different from classroom learning. OK, Phi Beta Kappa also requires going beyond one major and learning a foreign language, but to be honest, to this date I'm still not sure if joining PBK is worthwhile.
I suppose the PI's would look at publications and presentations instead. I published in Nature and the paper is widely cited. I have also been invited to give seminars, which I think are more relevant and impressive than the undergrad honors. So I wonder, are undergraduate honors still worth mentioning on my CV after graduate school? Thanks for your suggestions!<issue_comment>username_1: Maybe. They certainly belong on a cv, but what you submit with your postdoc application might be closer to a resume. See the difference [here](https://icc.ucdavis.edu/materials/resume/resumecv).
That academic site does suggest the full cv for a postdoc. Your cover letter should of course speak to your particular fit/value at this particular lab.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends, but it can be worth it!
I'll give you a related example: in my program a lot of students took the bachelor's degree and only very few continued with the master's (of course, mostly people with good performance continued).
This resulted in 20% of master's students getting honours, while for the bachelor's it was just 7%. In this situation showing the honours on the bachelor (and possibly mentioning the statistic) is a much more significant qualification
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: In my opinion the CV should be brief (max 2 pages) and must highlight your most important academic achievements. PIs don't have time to read pages filled with small details about your education and undergrad experience. You will be invited for an interview if your profile stands above the others. A lengthy and excessively detailed CV may simply be ignored and trashed. So, what do PIs check first?
* Where you did your PhD (if in a prestigious institute and under well reputed supervisor).
* What you publishd (a Nature paper is awesome! Congratulations).
* If you won any scholarship or grant (there's always a high demand of postdocs able and willing to acquire funding for their own salary).
What is less important, but still worth mentioning?
If you still have some space left in this 2-page CV you are welcome to include a honors and awards section, where you can list the prizes and acknowledgement you obtained, starting from the most recent (undergrad honors at the end). I also try to mention my talks at international conferences (selected from abstracts or invited). This basically shows that you are capable of communicating your data in front of a broad scientific community. I always advise against listing the poster presentation. Nobody really cares if you made a poster.
This is my recommendation. Good luck with the job search.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: By the time you finish your PhD, there should be relatively few references to undergraduate experiences on the CV, but you can include some of this information in the lines where the bachelor's degree is listed.
E.g. -
B.S. Biology (Hons) & Chemistry (Valedictorian), Name of School, *summa cum laude*, 2014
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: It sort of depends.. The more mature you become in your career, the less relevant the older stuff becomes. At the same time, hiring committees are strange beasts and while Mr X might not give a toss about something, Mrs Y might and vice versa about something else.
I will give you an analogy. In Math, we have math olympiads and that sort of things. Personally, I really don't care if someone was on a high ranking Putnam team or got a medal in the IMO. However, I have sometimes sat on hiring committees with colleagues who do care. When applying for a tenure track position, you're competing with anything from 50 to 500 others, so if that info gets you a second look from one committee member, good. That's not what will get you hired, but it might mean someone wants to defend your application a bit and that might land you on the long list.
So I would recommend leaving the info in. But make it short, as someone suggested.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/03
| 1,073
| 4,622
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a soon-to-be fourth-year doctoral candidate in Applied Experimental Psychology who earned my Master's in Experimental Psychology back in December 2020.
I recently viewed my master's program's website after I saw a job listing for a professor position on Indeed and noticed that the program's name will be changed from "Experimental Psychology" to "Psychological Science" starting next academic year.
**Do I need to change how I list my MA on my CV?** Will this also change anything else relevant (e.g., how my degree appears on a transcript)? The requirements for the "Psychological Sciences" degree are exactly the same as "Experimental Psychology" (name change only).
To clarify, I am not saying I should remove "Experimental Psychology" or anything like that. I have seen similar answers about program changes on various websites and how they are listed on a CV ranges from "Master of Arts in Experimental Psychology (currently Psychological Science)" to include both names all the way to saying to just list the original name rather than both names.<issue_comment>username_1: You received an MA in "Experimental Psychology" (the original title). The fact that the department renames or changes the master is irrelevant to your title. It is not like you would no longer have an MA if the department were to drop the MA program ;).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I was in a similar situation with my bachelor's and was told that in situations where a degree program changes its name after graduation, it's generally appropriate and accurate to maintain the original name of the degree on your CV. The reason for this is that the name of your degree at the time you earned it provides the most precise historical record of your academic accomplishments. It also avoids potential confusion that may arise from listing a degree name that technically didn't exist at the time of your graduation.
In your case, you earned a Master's degree in Experimental Psychology in 2020, and that's the title that reflects the curriculum, focus, and body of knowledge you mastered during your time in the program. You didn't earn a degree in Psychological Science, even if the content and requirements of the two degrees are identical.
If you feel the need for clarification or context, especially if the new name of the degree has more recognition or is better understood in your field, you can add a brief note in parentheses. Maybe you might list your degree as "Master of Arts in Experimental Psychology (program now known as Psychological Science)."
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You wouldn't change the program name because that's not the name of the program you completed. However, if the facility changed its name, then you might want to update that to avoid confusion.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you change the name, there is a danger that someone will say "but X University, didn't have a degree called MA in Psychological Sciences back in 2020, therefore the applicant is a fake".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You have your diploma for four years, use whatever title is written on it.
Now if you really wanted, I would suggest you clarify this with whoever is in charge of that program, of if unknown the university administration or a professor you might know. We can't assess based only on your statement if the two programs are really the same, maybe while the course names are still the same the content is different for example.
Supposing they actually are 100 % the same, you have a few options:
* Write it exactly how it will be on your diploma / certificate, so if asked to provide it you avoid any confusion, and I believe in academia they might verify your credentials, so you better be using the proper title or university administration won't find you in their records
* Pick whichever one you fancy (this could change depending on what role you apply to)
* Use both with a slash in between
My professional experience in general is that people in the industry rarely care about the exact content of your Bachelor's or Master's, especially as the course content and quality could be wildly different depending on which college you attended, so I wouldn't worry about using an "up-to-date" name; as long as you have an education in Psychology and the experience relevant for the role, I doubt they'll care.
Also, folks who might hire you will either know that the name changed, or they won't in which case they might not know what "Psychological Science" means. You're better off using the "old" name either way in my opinion.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/03
| 797
| 3,273
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been researching getting into a Ph.D. program for neuroscience, and I'm seeing stuff like this:
>
> A minimum average of 3.00/4.00 for the final 60 semester hours (90 quarter hours) of undergraduate study. - <https://catalog.uic.edu/gcat/graduate-college/neus/phd/>
>
>
>
This appears to be a new thing, at least to me. For what I learned over a decade ago, it was important to have at least a cumulative GPA of 3.5/4.0. It looks to me that the admissions requirements have decreased. Maybe on average people in their junior and senior years are taking more advanced courses relative to their major; but I don't think that holds in all cases.
What's the value of seeking the GPA from the last two years of undergraduate study? To measure a person's academic maturity in seeking a good grade?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you have the reason. It is the upper division courses (in the US system) that are a better predictor than the first two years.
If you can do well in more advanced undergraduate courses than you did earlier, you are probably advancing. You are probably better prepared for what is to come than if it was only your early courses in which you did especially well.
And people are looking at grades not for the grades themselves, but for the indication of learning. An imperfect measure, of course, but little in life is perfect.
And, as you note, none of this is true universally, but there are probably no universal predictors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two reasons I am familiar with:
1. Performance in the upper division classes is more likely to be related to a student's performance in graduate school because of the greater similarity of grad work to these courses compared with introductory courses.
2. Performance over the first two years, when a student is less mature or may still be adjusting to college, is not very predictive of a student's performance in graduate school.
This also has equity implications. Students who went to less challenging high schools will have more adjusting to do in college, and therefore might have lower GPAs for the first few semesters. These students are more likely to be lower income or first generation college students. By considering only the last 60 credits -- the credits most likely to predict a student's success in graduate school anyway -- the schools can reduce this irrelevant advantage for students with intergenerational privilege.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Your last 60 credits reflect your GPA following some adjustment period to college, where some students may have issues that they've managed to overcome. Presumably, the later credits also include some of the more challenging advanced coursework in your major.
All in all, it sounds like a reasonable policy. It doesn't guarantee a student that meets the requirement is guaranteed not to flunk put of a grad program for GPA issues, but I bet it correlates positively, while not barring entrance for those who have overcome on ramp issues.
Note also that's a minimum requirement that certainly doesn't guarantee admission, so it's not a "low bar", just a screening tool. Your 3.5 gives you a better chance at admission than someone who has a 3.0.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/03
| 174
| 755
|
<issue_start>username_0: How to withdraw a submitted (but not under review) manuscript from a journal? The reason being it has taken a lot of time (around 5 months) and has not gone under review process as of yet.<issue_comment>username_1: You email the journal/editor. That's it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The precise answer depends on the publisher. Usually if you log into the website where you can view your submission, there is also an option to withdraw. Presumably since you are able to check that it is not yet under review the journal in question is using this sort of system. If you can't find an option to withdraw, there should at least be an option to send a message to the handling editor, where you can request this.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/03
| 321
| 1,455
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a member of a mathematical organization which is not tied to any university, but rather has members from several different institutions (who are mathematicians). Furthermore, the organization even has its own journal that it publishes.
Currently, I am affiliated with a university, and this is the institutional email that I use. However, I was wondering if it was possible for the organization to create its own institutional email. For example, I would like to link my Google Scholar account or Arxiv account to this email.
What are some possible ways to implement this idea?
Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, organizations can have their own email servers. ACM.org does, for example. It is also possible to contract out the service to a larger organization like Microsoft but still maintain an institutional domain: <EMAIL>, say. Money is needed, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If the organization has a website, it must be hosted somewhere. They likely pay for shared hosting. Most shared hosting providers include free email addresses linked to the domain name. If not, they do for a small fee. When you use this address as author, the paper will be automatically linked to this address. Then you just have to link your Google scholar profile to this address (I don't like Google scholar, just mention it because it's what the OP asked.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/04
| 496
| 2,261
|
<issue_start>username_0: I plan to show a picture in my scientific paper. This picture is a modification of pictures from another scientific paper. How can I annotate, explain and quote the picture ?<issue_comment>username_1: It is important to provide credit where credit is due. If you see a figure and modify it to suit your needs your can provide credit by referencing the figure as "modified from xxx(yyyy)" or "based on xxx (yyyy)" or something similar to that.
The scientific world is full or figures that have been modified. I found one of my figures being the basis for a figure in one of the IPCC reports but where the modifiers having missed the point of some of the graphical aspects of the original figure. In other words, do not just copy a figure, make sure it reflects what you need to show and do not leave aspects of the original figure that is not relevant for your purposes.
There will always be a discussion on where the boundary lies between just copying a figure and modifying something to suit a specific purpose. Back in the days no one really cared, having a figure replicated or modified was treated as an honour. The important aspect will always lie with providing the proper source for the original figure so that the originator gets its (their) credit.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: "Adapted from [Reference to the Original Article], with permission from [Copyright Holder]." is commonly used but it may also depend on the Journal where you want to publish your paper. Check with the Journal's referencing guidelines if they have any specific format.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You can write something along the lines of:
Inspired by X et al. and Y, we present a process overview diagram, see Fig. 1. In the figure, we combine the perspectives of X and Y and have added our specific use case.
This way, it is clear that the idea comes from someone else, however you have added some contribution to it. A contribution can be stylistic, for example, you took someone else's figure and recreated it to your liking. Or, more substantial as adding/removing parts of the figure.
If you want to contrast yourself against X and Y, highlight your contribution using different colors/line widths/patterns.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/04
| 668
| 2,938
|
<issue_start>username_0: We have hundreds of thousands of scholarly articles containing lab data and mathematical modeling results - published every year.
But what to do with a gray area in scientific research where there is no previous research? A conceptual brainstorming of topics outside of academia mainstream subjects should have some limited way of existence.<issue_comment>username_1: If you want existence of your work without peer review you can try arxiv. Some of the path breaking work only exist in arXiv.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that if your paper is novel and based on sound reasoning and research (which usually means that it is supported by previous work and/or your own experiments) you should be able to publish it *somewhere*. So that's the best option. But, I would argue that "brainstorming" without any evidence is *not* really research. If that is what you are trying to publish, then you will be limited. arXiv might not event take that sort of [thing](https://info.arxiv.org/help/moderation/index.html) (check out their moderation policy).
If you are trying to present scholarly work (especially without experimental evidence), you need scholarly sources as a foundation. If you present a hypothesis based on nothing (or worse bad/unreliable sources) then it will not stand up to scrutiny - which is what seems to be happening if you have received the same feedback multiple times.
I would suggest either
**A)** shoring up your hypothesis with background research or experiments and resubmitting to an appropriate journal
*or*
**B)** consider starting a blog that you can use to deposit (and develop) your ideas without the same scholarly expectations of a journal.
A side note, you should be honest with yourself about the viability of your hypothesis. Perhaps your topic is interesting but not well supported (I suspect this is the case if you have made it to reviewers multiple times). Or perhaps your topic is treading close to pseudoscience and your sources are just an easy excuse to reject. Either way, the solution is not necessarily to try to circumvent the normal publishing process. You should really try to properly support your ideas so they can be published.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> gray area in scientific research where there is no previous research?
>
>
>
This is no gray area at all.
Either it is a scientific area, or it is not. If it is a new area, ideally, you would trigger discussion among people sharing the same research area, by hosting a workshop or at least a meeting, then you consider if someone would support you in starting a new journal.
Then if there is enough interest, you start publishing your own journal with a publisher, or on your own (see diamond open-source initiatives).
If there is not enough interest, you prepare a monography and you see how it goes in publishing (and reading it).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/05
| 2,493
| 10,337
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student and I want to start writing my research paper on chemistry modeling. I don't know how to organize my ideas or how to highlight my results.
I'm looking for a strategy to follow, and even though I've been reading a lot of papers about my topic, I still don't get the starting point.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm assuming that your paper will have the following sections, more or less in that order *(the state of the art can be at the beginning or end of papers depending on fields, and sometimes fused with the intro)*:
* **Introduction** what cool work you did in your paper and why it's important
* **State of the Art** what other people did that are similar/related, what you are basing your paper on
* **Methodology** the steps you took to achieve your results and why you chose them - sometimes also includes what you expected
* **Results** a straight description the actual results and if they matched your hypotheses
* **Discussion** now that you discussed the results, how do you interpret them more in depth? what do they tell you about your initial hypothesis? what follow-up questions did they raise?
* **Exploration** *(optional)* if they raised questions and you did more experiments, quick summary (method + results + mini discussion)
* **Conclusion** summary of the cool work you did + some perspectives.
If this is your first paper, it will probably be the easiest to start by the methodology and results description. Goal is to describe what you did, some of why, and your results, which you should know at this point. Then, I would suggest writing jointly the state of the art and the discussion, to make sure you are not overlooking things. Questions raised by your results might have answers in the literature, and doing a back and forth between discussion and existing papers will help you build a stronger argument.
You should finish by the introduction and conclusion: as they are summaries of your overall paper and how it fits in the rest of the science, as well as a way for you to sell your ideas, it will be easier (especially as a PhD student) to do them once you already actually have a paper.
Then you can do an overall re-reading to make everything simpler to read.
Good luck and have fun!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Your starting point is reading *tonnes* of papers about your topic and in the type of journals you're targeting. You're already to good start.
---
A research paper conveys a key message to target audience and highlights the key contribution to the body of knowledge. It is not as *broad* as a Thesis.
Hence, in drafting a research paper, one needs to figure out and be clear in their mind ... *what's the message I'm putting out there*, *what's significant about the work done*, *what's the purpose*.
In your instance as you've narrated, you've got ideas already. Storyboard them and write them down.
Your results, itemise them and write them down. Also, write how you went about getting the results you've gotten. Slowly, the research paper is taking shape. With more ingredients, the paper is '*cooked*', ready your '*dishing*'.
There're different structures for research papers across different fields. For chemistry modelling, you should broadly fall under the [IMRaD model](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442179/).
I'll talk a bit more on this, before then take a look for instance at this [GEOS-Chem chemistry model v10 by <NAME> Evans (2019)](https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1209-2019).
They have a structure introducing their work, the method used, deep dive into the work, followed by discussion and then conclusion.
1) Introduction;
2) Methods;
3) Long-term simulation using the random;
forest model;
4) Discussion;
5) Conclusions.
[Extract from IMRaD Wikipedia]
Introduction – Why was the study undertaken? What was the research question, the tested hypothesis or the purpose of the research?
Methods – When, where, and how was the study done? What materials were used or who was included in the study groups (patients, etc.)?
Results – What answer was found to the research question; what did the study find? Was the tested hypothesis true?
Discussion – What might the answer imply and why does it matter? How does it fit in with what other researchers have found? What are the perspectives for future research?
---
Please note that some have ***literature review*** (***related works***) as part of **Introduction** or better still just after introduction and before methods.
The literature review is rapid or purposeful. It's different from systematic review. However, some chemistry modelling papers are actually chemistry modelling reviews in which case they might be systematic review (aligning with PRISMA) or narrative review or even rapid following the PRISMA-ScR.
Also, take note that in some fields, **methodology** covers not just the ***methods***, but the philosophical underpinning, research approach and strategy, methods and data collection tools. See the ***research onion*** in Saunders et al. (2023), now in the 9th edition.
[<NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2023). Research Methods for Business Students. (9th ed.) Pearson](https://www.pearson.com/en-gb/subject-catalog/p/research-methods-for-business-students/P200000010080/9781292402727)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Congratulations on getting a publishable result!
When you're starting to write a paper, especially if you don't have a lot of experience with manuscript preparation, anything you can do to get past the blank page and start getting text down can help.
You've been reading a lot of related papers. Do you have any target journals picked out for this publication yet? Have you been reading papers from those journals? If you look at a few examples from your target journals, you can get a sense of the basic structure and organization they use. Put those section headings into your document. They will likely be Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, but this can vary. Each section answers specific questions.
The first section to fill out is the Methods. What did you do? How could someone else replicate what you did?
Then fill out Results. What did you find out? What was significant, and what was not?
Now you are ready to write the introduction: What context would the reader need to understand why you picked this research question? Why was your research question important, what differentiates your strategy from other people's, and what was your contribution?
You can now write the Discussion, calling back to the context you established for your research question in the Introduction. Make specific references to your results and discuss what they mean in a more "big picture" way.
Finally, you are ready to write the abstract. This should summarize the whole paper, telling the reader in one or two sentences each why the research is important, what you did, what you found, and what it means. Basically, use one or two sentences to summarize each section of your paper in order.
That's it!
One last piece of advice: Don't be afraid to get feedback early and often, even if it is from your fellow PhD students rather than from your PI. The less developed your paper is when you solicit feedback, the easier it is to change course.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Beginning writers think of a paper as something that exists in their mind, and that the job of the writer is to 'download' it to paper via hands. This is not how it works. Writing is an iterative process, in which ideas are formed *as you write them*, and the writer moves from one draft to another, until it's good enough to send to the journal. So don't worry about perfection. Just keep doing drafts, and the paper will come to life, eventually.
Another thing that I think beginners miss is that the difficult part is usually just *getting started*, so I always advice my students to train themselves to start writing. This is achieved by putting a timer and promising yourself to work for say, 15 minutes. That time is usually short enough that you can avoid procrastination, but long enough to put something in writing. You then **stop** at 15 minutes, no matter if the writing is going well. You then force yourself to take a break and restart. Let's say you budgeted 2 hours of writing, that's 8 different times you have to force yourself to start. After a few days, your brain will be trained in the skill of *starting to write*.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Other answers give good advice on how to do this in general, I want to give some tips on how to do the practical thing. This is something I used to write all my papers.
In my opinion, separating the task of thinking from the task of doing is essential in overcoming mental blocks. If I'm trying to think about the overall story of the paper or proper language while I write down the content, I get stuck.
I employ a two-step process: First, I write everything down that I can think of. Anything related to the paper, what I did, why this is good, why it is better than other papers, what the application is etc. Crucial for this step is to not think about whether those claims made are correct or even make sense. After this, I usually have a draft of a paper that comes close to the required pages but the content is probably 50% nonsense, the language is bad, the pictures look bad...
So then you go to step two: Improving the content.
Now that there are some ideas on paper, it becomes much easier to get the actual paper that you want to write. Since judging content is simpler than creating content, I can now dissect everything I wrote. I find a lot of nonsense during this process, but some ideas stick and turn out to be good ones. It is also easier to judge the overall story from this, which helps to improve the structure. You do this a few times, filter out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff.
Two additional points: First, I like to get a bit tipsy to do the first part, but that is just me. Whatever helps you to produce a large amount of 'nonsense'. Second, an important skill is to not be afraid of reading your own text. This is something I struggled in the beginning of my PhD. Try to get over this, it is crucial for becoming good and fast.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/05
| 2,477
| 10,282
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a paper to the journal with a homepage statement that reads, '7 days from submission to first decision (median).'" After one month it’s “Editor assigned “. What does this means? What is the meaning of 7 in this situation? Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm assuming that your paper will have the following sections, more or less in that order *(the state of the art can be at the beginning or end of papers depending on fields, and sometimes fused with the intro)*:
* **Introduction** what cool work you did in your paper and why it's important
* **State of the Art** what other people did that are similar/related, what you are basing your paper on
* **Methodology** the steps you took to achieve your results and why you chose them - sometimes also includes what you expected
* **Results** a straight description the actual results and if they matched your hypotheses
* **Discussion** now that you discussed the results, how do you interpret them more in depth? what do they tell you about your initial hypothesis? what follow-up questions did they raise?
* **Exploration** *(optional)* if they raised questions and you did more experiments, quick summary (method + results + mini discussion)
* **Conclusion** summary of the cool work you did + some perspectives.
If this is your first paper, it will probably be the easiest to start by the methodology and results description. Goal is to describe what you did, some of why, and your results, which you should know at this point. Then, I would suggest writing jointly the state of the art and the discussion, to make sure you are not overlooking things. Questions raised by your results might have answers in the literature, and doing a back and forth between discussion and existing papers will help you build a stronger argument.
You should finish by the introduction and conclusion: as they are summaries of your overall paper and how it fits in the rest of the science, as well as a way for you to sell your ideas, it will be easier (especially as a PhD student) to do them once you already actually have a paper.
Then you can do an overall re-reading to make everything simpler to read.
Good luck and have fun!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Your starting point is reading *tonnes* of papers about your topic and in the type of journals you're targeting. You're already to good start.
---
A research paper conveys a key message to target audience and highlights the key contribution to the body of knowledge. It is not as *broad* as a Thesis.
Hence, in drafting a research paper, one needs to figure out and be clear in their mind ... *what's the message I'm putting out there*, *what's significant about the work done*, *what's the purpose*.
In your instance as you've narrated, you've got ideas already. Storyboard them and write them down.
Your results, itemise them and write them down. Also, write how you went about getting the results you've gotten. Slowly, the research paper is taking shape. With more ingredients, the paper is '*cooked*', ready your '*dishing*'.
There're different structures for research papers across different fields. For chemistry modelling, you should broadly fall under the [IMRaD model](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442179/).
I'll talk a bit more on this, before then take a look for instance at this [GEOS-Chem chemistry model v10 by <NAME> Evans (2019)](https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1209-2019).
They have a structure introducing their work, the method used, deep dive into the work, followed by discussion and then conclusion.
1) Introduction;
2) Methods;
3) Long-term simulation using the random;
forest model;
4) Discussion;
5) Conclusions.
[Extract from IMRaD Wikipedia]
Introduction – Why was the study undertaken? What was the research question, the tested hypothesis or the purpose of the research?
Methods – When, where, and how was the study done? What materials were used or who was included in the study groups (patients, etc.)?
Results – What answer was found to the research question; what did the study find? Was the tested hypothesis true?
Discussion – What might the answer imply and why does it matter? How does it fit in with what other researchers have found? What are the perspectives for future research?
---
Please note that some have ***literature review*** (***related works***) as part of **Introduction** or better still just after introduction and before methods.
The literature review is rapid or purposeful. It's different from systematic review. However, some chemistry modelling papers are actually chemistry modelling reviews in which case they might be systematic review (aligning with PRISMA) or narrative review or even rapid following the PRISMA-ScR.
Also, take note that in some fields, **methodology** covers not just the ***methods***, but the philosophical underpinning, research approach and strategy, methods and data collection tools. See the ***research onion*** in Saunders et al. (2023), now in the 9th edition.
[<NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2023). Research Methods for Business Students. (9th ed.) Pearson](https://www.pearson.com/en-gb/subject-catalog/p/research-methods-for-business-students/P200000010080/9781292402727)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Congratulations on getting a publishable result!
When you're starting to write a paper, especially if you don't have a lot of experience with manuscript preparation, anything you can do to get past the blank page and start getting text down can help.
You've been reading a lot of related papers. Do you have any target journals picked out for this publication yet? Have you been reading papers from those journals? If you look at a few examples from your target journals, you can get a sense of the basic structure and organization they use. Put those section headings into your document. They will likely be Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, but this can vary. Each section answers specific questions.
The first section to fill out is the Methods. What did you do? How could someone else replicate what you did?
Then fill out Results. What did you find out? What was significant, and what was not?
Now you are ready to write the introduction: What context would the reader need to understand why you picked this research question? Why was your research question important, what differentiates your strategy from other people's, and what was your contribution?
You can now write the Discussion, calling back to the context you established for your research question in the Introduction. Make specific references to your results and discuss what they mean in a more "big picture" way.
Finally, you are ready to write the abstract. This should summarize the whole paper, telling the reader in one or two sentences each why the research is important, what you did, what you found, and what it means. Basically, use one or two sentences to summarize each section of your paper in order.
That's it!
One last piece of advice: Don't be afraid to get feedback early and often, even if it is from your fellow PhD students rather than from your PI. The less developed your paper is when you solicit feedback, the easier it is to change course.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Beginning writers think of a paper as something that exists in their mind, and that the job of the writer is to 'download' it to paper via hands. This is not how it works. Writing is an iterative process, in which ideas are formed *as you write them*, and the writer moves from one draft to another, until it's good enough to send to the journal. So don't worry about perfection. Just keep doing drafts, and the paper will come to life, eventually.
Another thing that I think beginners miss is that the difficult part is usually just *getting started*, so I always advice my students to train themselves to start writing. This is achieved by putting a timer and promising yourself to work for say, 15 minutes. That time is usually short enough that you can avoid procrastination, but long enough to put something in writing. You then **stop** at 15 minutes, no matter if the writing is going well. You then force yourself to take a break and restart. Let's say you budgeted 2 hours of writing, that's 8 different times you have to force yourself to start. After a few days, your brain will be trained in the skill of *starting to write*.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Other answers give good advice on how to do this in general, I want to give some tips on how to do the practical thing. This is something I used to write all my papers.
In my opinion, separating the task of thinking from the task of doing is essential in overcoming mental blocks. If I'm trying to think about the overall story of the paper or proper language while I write down the content, I get stuck.
I employ a two-step process: First, I write everything down that I can think of. Anything related to the paper, what I did, why this is good, why it is better than other papers, what the application is etc. Crucial for this step is to not think about whether those claims made are correct or even make sense. After this, I usually have a draft of a paper that comes close to the required pages but the content is probably 50% nonsense, the language is bad, the pictures look bad...
So then you go to step two: Improving the content.
Now that there are some ideas on paper, it becomes much easier to get the actual paper that you want to write. Since judging content is simpler than creating content, I can now dissect everything I wrote. I find a lot of nonsense during this process, but some ideas stick and turn out to be good ones. It is also easier to judge the overall story from this, which helps to improve the structure. You do this a few times, filter out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff.
Two additional points: First, I like to get a bit tipsy to do the first part, but that is just me. Whatever helps you to produce a large amount of 'nonsense'. Second, an important skill is to not be afraid of reading your own text. This is something I struggled in the beginning of my PhD. Try to get over this, it is crucial for becoming good and fast.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/05
| 501
| 2,044
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing an essay as a university project and I would like to cite the following website: <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/if>.
My problem is that this website has no author in the conventional sense, but it is rather like a wikipedia page where multiple authors contributed over the years. The history can be found here: <https://en.cppreference.com/mwiki/index.php?title=cpp/language/if&action=history>, and the information page of the website (<https://en.cppreference.com/mwiki/index.php?title=cpp/language/if&action=info>) states that the website has had 30 editors.
Now, I know that citing a wikipedia page is not the best idea in a scientific paper. But this website contains information that would otherwise be very hard to gather. For example, it states when a new language feature was added to the standard. This is an important information, but the only other way to get this information would be to compare the different standard versions. And I somehow have to give a reference on where I get this information from.
Therefore the questions:
* Is there an accepted way to properly cite websites like this in a university essay or thesis?
* If there is, how would it look like in the IEEE format?
It is important to keep the essay references clean, so I do not want to include shady solutions.<issue_comment>username_1: I would do these two steps
A. Wikipedia, url, date accessed for content that is original commentary.
B. If the content you are referencing from Wikipedia has been originally coming from another reference. You might want to look into the original content and then refer the original paper.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You will have to cite the website url and the date accessed because wikipedia can change overnight. You cannot assign authors, as you do not know them.
Bibtex has a way to deal with this, and this should be useful even if you are not using bibtex:
<https://bibtex.eu/faq/how-can-i-use-bibtex-to-cite-a-website/>
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/05
| 1,070
| 4,528
|
<issue_start>username_0: My group is about to publish a research paper with another group. We mostly only provide funding and general oversight. It is important that me and a few colleagues are noted as authors on the paper, simply to make sure we get funding in the future and to indicate that this project was a success, also communicating within our own institution. A general remark "This works was funded by..." is not enough.
But I also do not want to take credit away from the (young) researchers in the other group that did all the grunt work.
What kind of sentence or other method would you suggest to make sure that the other group gets most of the credit? Order of authors comes to my mind, but this is not really clear due to coincidentally alphabetical enumeration.
Any kind of ideas?<issue_comment>username_1: For some (groups and fields), supervision is enough, and that can be said.
However, rather than list the contributions of everyone in a "contributions" section, list only the major contributors and their specific contribution, leaving the impression that the others was lesser. If you have listed everyone as authors, this should be enough.
Alternatively, you can probably say that you contributed ideas to the various discussions and, perhaps, some verification of the results. Both are likely true.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: "We mostly only provide funding and general oversight"
If you only provided funding and 'general oversight', then (in my books), that shouldn't qualify as a co-authorship, but an acknowledgement. These are the criteria for co-authorship I subscribe to:
>
> The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4
> criteria:
>
>
> 1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work;
> or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the
> work; AND
> 2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important
> intellectual content; AND
> 3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
> 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring
> that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of
> the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
>
>
>
Further:
>
> Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for
> authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be
> acknowledged. **Examples of activities that alone (without other
> contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are
> acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or
> general administrative support**; and writing assistance, technical
> editing, language editing, and proofreading
>
>
>
[Source](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I would add a detailed statement of author contribution. The [CRediT taxonomy](https://credit.niso.org/) does include specific roles for administration, conception/design, and supervision. Based on your comments I don't think there is necessarily any question that you made a worthy contribution to the paper.
With that in mind, I agree with @username_2's answer in general. The ICJME provides really good, clear guidelines. **But**, and this is a big but, the real world often requires flexibility and ICJME is the not the be all and end all of authorship criteria. In terms of authorship contribution, weekly meetings where you supervise, mentor, or otherwise directly guide the progress of a project is (in my opinion) a reasonable contribution to be named author. This is essentially what PhD supervisors do and I doubt anyone would suggest eliminating them from an author list. I find it impossible to believe that you made *NO* significant contributions to the paper with such a level of involvement. I'm also assuming that you reviewed the manuscript and approved the final draft. If you have not, you should. There is still time to do so since obviously you have not submitted the paper yet.
I also think it is worth mentioning that from the ICJME's website:
>
> **The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria** by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/05
| 613
| 2,739
|
<issue_start>username_0: For instance, I'm imagining a website where you could type in a query, like
>
> Does exposure to sun cause cancer?
>
>
>
And it would lead you to a page which had an either human curated or automatic overview of scientific research that is related to attempting to answer this question. Obviously, it's a uselessly general question without more qualifying specificity, but you get the idea.
I am interested in any kinds of websites that offer visual or otherwise condensed summaries / links to existing scientific research across all domains. With a focus on usability as a lay person.
Does anyone know of sites that might do similar things? Thanks for your time!<issue_comment>username_1: The obvious answer is google (or google scholar). That is literally what a search engine does, it shows you relevant documents based on your criteria. It seems like that's not exactly what you mean though. I don't think you will find curated content, only because how could someone curate content in real time for a dynamic search phrase?
There are programs that *sort of* do what you want. For instance UpToDate is a medical focused resource for clinicians that provides articles that summarizes topics and concisely presents the latest research and expert opinion. It doesn't generate these articles on the fly, and you are still just searching a database of content, but it is more curated than a general search engine. It is also very expensive and is really for medical doctors to use as a replacement for those old school desk references.
The final option is the worst (in my opinion) but is exactly what you want - Bing's AI powered search. It attempts to generate an explanation of whatever you want (being based on GPT3 or GPT4, I don't know which exactly) but unlike the base versions, tries to "cite" it's sources using search results from the regular Bing search algorithm. Presumably this is to circumvent the tendency for these AI's to basically make things up. So you might get more reliable results. I think it's only available on Edge (or through a phone app) and its basically just a reskinned ChatGPT. So I don't know how useful it would be for in depth research concepts. But it does *sound* like what you are looking for.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: elicit has some of this functionality. it allows users to input a general research question and the program analyses papers that help answer the question, its quite new and theyre rolling out new features. ive used it as a supplementary resource and for that its quite helpful.
it provides some detailed results on each paper that it returns like a summary of the abstract, methods and key findings which is helpful too.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/05
| 1,393
| 6,198
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted a math paper to an Elsevier journal around 2.5 months ago, it is now under review (reviewer invited) for around 2 weeks. I understand that this is a relatively short time for a math paper. However, I am post-doc now and with huge amount of luck I found my ideal job in a national lab, its a junior scientist position and they promised me that if I have a first/single author paper then I will get this position, the window of opportunity will be closed by the end of this summer.
IS it appropriate to communicate this to the editor? and will this be helpful for speeding up the process?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you can ask, but it might not have any effect. It is unlikely to slow the process, but the reviewer has their own time constraints.
But the editor might be able to get you a decision some days or so earlier than otherwise. Asking is fine, but it won't affect the final decision, I expect.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: My gut says this would not be *inappropriate* but it might not be effective. Everyone wants their papers published quickly. I can't imagine your situation is unique.
I suppose that if your potential job hinges on this paper being published in the next 2 months you could ask *nicely* to see if they can speed up the administrative portions of the publication/review. But even if you got a sympathetic editor (and one that had the time and authority to fast-track your paper), they can't control reviewers or whether or not you need to make revisions. So you would see limited benefits in the best case.
I think your best bet is to contact your potential employer and let them know that you have this paper under review. Maybe they will accept that in lieu of the final publication.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: You can, and a sympathetic editor can probably speed things up a little. They could, e.g., invite more reviewers to start, pass your message to the reviewers and see if they can speed up the review, or simply send some reminders. But there will come a point where they cannot speed up the process any further - for example if a reviewer says they're on holiday for the next two weeks, and it's not plausible that a new reviewer will be able to review the manuscript within the next two weeks, then the only thing they can do is wait.
Which doesn't mean you can't ask. If it's really important to you, you might as well ask - the downside is minimal, if there's any downside at all.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm afraid it is almost certainly already too late. If reviewers have been found, they will probably have been given a three-month deadline, which is too late for your purposes, and the editor is not going to try to hurry them before that deadline. If not, then perhaps the editor can put more effort into finding them quickly, and suggest a slightly shorter deadline, but even this is likely to be too slow for you. (It could even backfire, if it makes finding reviewers harder.)
And a key point is: all this is only about the first decision, which is almost always "revisions required" (at best). Even if you could get to this point before the end of the summer, it is not clear that that would be any good.
If you had known this when initially submitting, it may have helped, as it seems there was an unnecessary delay in finding reviewers. But you would still have been asking for an extremely fast decision, so I very much doubt it would have happened in time even then.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: There's nothing wrong in asking. A typical request would be written like this:
Subject: Request for Expedited Review of Submitted Manuscript - [Manuscript Title]
Dear [Editor's Name],
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to kindly request your assistance regarding the review process of my manuscript titled "[Manuscript Title]," which was submitted to [Journal Name] approximately 2.5 months ago.
Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewers and the editorial team for their time and effort in evaluating my work. I understand the importance of a thorough review process, and I appreciate their commitment to ensuring the quality of publications in [Journal Name].
However, I find myself in a unique situation where an exciting career opportunity has presented itself to me. I have been offered a junior scientist position at a national laboratory, which aligns perfectly with my research interests and long-term goals. The condition for securing this position is to have a first/single author publication, and the deadline for this opportunity is rapidly approaching at the end of this summer.
Given the time-sensitive nature of this career opportunity, I would be immensely grateful if it would be possible to expedite the review process for my manuscript. I understand that this is an exceptional request, and I assure you that I value the integrity and rigor of the peer review process. However, I believe that a faster review turnaround would provide me with the chance to fulfill the publication requirement and secure the aforementioned position, allowing me to contribute significantly to the scientific community.
If it is feasible, I kindly request your support in expediting the review process or providing any guidance that may facilitate an earlier decision on my manuscript. I am open to any suggestions or alternative solutions that would allow for a timely evaluation without compromising the quality of the review.
Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is required or if there are any updates regarding my request. I sincerely appreciate your understanding and consideration in this matter, and I remain committed to working closely with the editorial team to ensure the integrity and excellence of the publication process.
Thank you very much for your attention and assistance. I eagerly await your response and look forward to the outcome of the review process.
Kind regards,
[Your Name]
[Your Affiliation]
[Your Contact Information]
Since it's long, it'd help to highlight the important sentences with a yellow highlight or bold letters.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/06
| 584
| 2,181
|
<issue_start>username_0: So my professor lost a family member a couple of weeks ago and went back home. I have not communicated with him since he announced this (in a lab meeting), work-related or otherwise, because I was just too scared to say anything that soon (yes, scared; although he's not scary at all).
Anyway, so now he's back and I need to send him an email about a work related matter. But I also don't want him to think that I just don't care and act as if nothing happened (should I?). It seems to me that sending two separate emails, one saying "sorry for your loss" and the other saying "yeah so let's have a meeting" does not make sense. So I was thinking of saying something along the lines of:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> First, so sorry for your loss and hope you're doing fine.
>
>
> Also, we need to meet about my thesis.
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
But I'm not sure if this is appropriate. Any suggestions?<issue_comment>username_1: It is probably better to send two mails, at least several hours apart. Make the first one personal and the second professional.
We don't know how the professor would react to a combined mail, so probably best to avoid it. A day apart or so would be better, especially if a meeting can't be held for a while.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: That he's back at work is a signal that is okay to contact him about work related matters as you normally would.
Since you're arranging to meet him anyway, it think it would be better to express your condolences at the start of that meeting rather than via email, however if you wish to put it in the email then that is also acceptable. What comes across as weird in your draft is the inclusion of an "also". Just put the condolences in the first line and write the rest of the email exactly as you normally would:
>
> Title: Thesis Meeting
>
>
> Dear [Professor],
>
>
> I was sorry to hear of your loss, and hope you are doing okay.
>
>
> I need to meet with you regarding my thesis, and discuss [x], when would be a good time for this meeting? I am free [whenever].
>
>
>
I would not send two emails, the time for an email simply of condolences has already passed.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/06
| 756
| 3,034
|
<issue_start>username_0: There is a student that I helped a lot which I shouldn't.
Now I don't like her to attend my defence while she has the same supervisor as me.
Can I ask her to leave if my supervisor invited her by any chance? (I just don't like this person around me for taking credit of my ideas)<issue_comment>username_1: If the supervisor invited her, I'd suggest you not ask. It could get very awkward. Taking credit for your ideas is a different matter, but the defense is not the time to deal with it.
You don't want the supervisor upset with you at that moment especially.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Keep calm and get your defence done with. Live a '*happy*' research life after!
---
>
> Can I ask her to leave if my supervisor invited her by any chance?
>
>
>
Can you? You can.
Should you? You shouldn't. Things might/would spiral down quickly.
Your defense is your (next) most important moment after all these years. Why ruin it or get it messy with your supervisor at a critical moment?
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: We know only your half of the story. If we would listen to their side of the story, it would be probably someone feeling their contributions undervalued, or even that you stole their ideas and that you hide acknowledging her contributions.
So the hard facts are simply two:
* you are defending your thesis with some ideas inside (which are yours, until someone spread doubts about it);
* you spent many hours with this student (and even if you did not want or realize, surely you spoke also about the ideas that **you** developed and wrote in your thesis).
It is your defense, but if possible future development of this relation are really worriyng you ... do not be defensive.
>
> Attack is the secret of defense; defense is the planning of an attack
>
>
>
Your defense is the best moment to publicly clarify your relation with this student, you can say that along the past months/years you enjoyed[1] spending many hours **supporting her work** and supporting her was extremely helpful to the development of **your ideas**.
Leave it at that.
[1] otherwise, why would you be so resentful that you spent so much time with them?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Depending on what exactly you mean by "invited", there may be a way around this through scheduling.
When I was planning my defense, there was a professor I really wanted to not be there. It wasn't for the same reason as you're stating, but there was a dynamic I really wanted to avoid during the big event.
So I scheduled my defense during one of that professor's classes. I knew that he could not attend my defense if he was teaching in the classroom on the next floor up at the same time.
If you're in control of scheduling, then you can pick a time you know will not be accommodating for the person in question. At my school, scheduling was a hard enough of a problem that nobody really expected that a given defense would allow every single member of the faculty to attend.
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/07/06
| 957
| 3,229
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was searching for Journal Impact Factor on internet, after that I came across a website named [Journals Insights](https://www.journalsinsights.com/).
I'll like to know if the Impact Factor mentioned on the website is correct or not?
Specifically, the IF for the [Indian journal of medical research](https://www.journalsinsights.com/journals/indian-journal-of-medical-research#indian_journal_of_medical_research_impact_factor)<issue_comment>username_1: I cannot say whether that website is accurate. But I can say that impact factors are put out by Clarivate. So if you want to check a journals impact factor, or even verify that the journal has an impact factor at all, look at Clarivate's [Master Journal List](https://mjl.clarivate.com/home). I think some of the specific metrics (impact factor possibly included) are locked behind a subscription though. Alternatively, you can just look at the journal's home page directly. I suppose they could lie there, but that's out of your control.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: On face value, the Journals Insights is an aggregator with fairly good metrics.
---
The Journals Insights appears to be an aggregator. As to its credibility, I can not say. However, going by the listing for this ***Indian Journal of Medical Research***, it is not far off.
It listed the SJR as 0.716. On Scimago, the SJR is 0.72 with H-index of 96.
Regarding impact factor (IF), the [Journals Insights](https://www.journalsinsights.com/journals/indian-journal-of-medical-research#indian_journal_of_medical_research_scimago) says the "*Impact Factor of Indian Journal of Medical Research is 4.2 (2023)*".
However, the journal's [website](https://ijmr.icmr.org.in/ijmr/index.aspx) says "*Impact Factor® as reported in the 2022 Journal Citation Reports® (Clarivate Analytics, 2022): 5.274*".
This is similar to another [aggregator](https://academic-accelerator.com): "*Indian Journal of Medical Research is 5.274, which is just updated in 2023.*"
PS: can't vouch for this Academic accelerator as well.
[Scopus Preview](https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/14659) shows that the journal (with two previous names) and ISSN:0971-5916 has a [cite score of 5.6](https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/14659) as of May 2023.
PS: The SJR of 0.716 matches that of Journals Insights.
Likewise, the ISSN matches that of Scimago and [Journals Insights](https://www.journalsinsights.com/journals/indian-journal-of-medical-research#indian_journal_of_medical_research_details).
* Print ISSN 0971-5916
* Online ISSN 0975-9174
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I have checked the 'official' Impact Factor at Clairviate Journal Citation Reports, and yes, the 2023 value is 4.2. This is down from a high of 5.3 last year, but significantly up from values in the range of 1.2-1.5 pre-2020.
Looking at the most cited papers from the past 2 years, 20 of the top 25 are COVID-19 related, and several of the others are more general reviews of relevance to COVID-19 (respiratory illnesses, obesity). So the journal has seen a huge upswing due to these COVID-related papers, but it remains to be seen if this will persist as we move back to more normal publishing patterns.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/06
| 1,686
| 6,847
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got several SPAM messages about conferences every week and know that most of them are scams, and can easily figure out what the scammers want (attend a weak conference, be an "estimated invited speaker", send credit card info, etc.) But today I got one that puzzled me -- a nice, educated offer that seems fishy (or am I getting paranoid)? I've added the text below.
I've found a site that matches the company description: <https://www.journal.ac.cn/>. It *looks* like a component of a research paper mill and contains the sentence *"JDC, founded by academic elites from London, UK, is dedicated to serving the ***excellecnt*** academic journals to help them achieve ***ther*** dreams and targets, and help them to reach a higher level in the scientific publishing."* [sic]
I am not going to fall for this, but am curious about the economics of the possible scam. They want to pay me to help with writing papers and submitting them to journals. Who pays for those services in an amount sufficient to pay me and those middlemen? If I needed help writing and publishing a paper I'd look to local help in my university or colleagues or colleagues of colleagues for free!
thanks!
Disclaimers: I've searched academia.stackexchange.com for similar topics and found none. I've redacted parts of the original message to protect the presumable innocent.
>
> Dear Dr. [my full name which I don't use often],
>
>
> I hope this email finds you well. This is [a generic name], a researcher from
> Journal Developing Consulting Co.Ltd.
>
>
> I am writing to ask whether you are interested in publication collaborations.
> I came across your academic publications, and I was impressed with the quality of
> your work. I believe that we share similar research interests, so I would like to
> explore the possibility of collaborating with you on some upcoming publication needs.
>
>
> Our team has been working on the publication of academic papers, and we are
> looking for someone with your expertise to help suggest some high-impact journals
> for publication and also follow the review process until acceptance. We understand
> that this process can be time-consuming and demanding, and we would like to offer you
> remuneration for your work and time on this. We believe that your input would be
> invaluable in improving the quality of our publications and increasing their chances of
> acceptance.
>
>
> If you are interested in collaborating with us, please let me know, and we can
> discuss the details further. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look
> forward to hearing back from you soon.
>
>
> Best regards,
> [a generic name]
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: >
> Who pays for those services in an amount sufficient to pay me and those middlemen?
>
>
>
Oh, a lot, lot of people!
Only a fraction of the people who can benefit from publication credit actually have the want, means, or ability to conduct research. Examples include:
* Industry workers who want to increase their profile among peers or increase their chances of getting a job.
* High school students looking for an edge in college admissions. There is an industry of middlemen with contacts within university faculty who negotiate inclusion of high school students as co-authors for cash. See this from ProPublica: [The Newest College Admissions Ploy: Paying to Make Your Teen a “Peer-Reviewed” Author](https://www.propublica.org/article/college-high-school-research-peer-review-publications)
* Professors at teaching institutions which require that professors publish, but the institutions have no capacity of evaluating the legitimacy of the publications, and provide zero support for the professor to do any kind of research.
* Researchers in countries whose government use a formulatic approach to salary and/or promotion, while the same governments provide zero support to accomplish actual research.
* And of course, the lazy, and the incompetent. None of these people have any incentive to access the free resources you mention.
If this is a scam or not, I'd look beyond the person offering to be the intermediary. In my view, the person purchasing the publication is the actual scammer, scamming the public (via increased salary from public sources), their institutions, their peers, etc. [There's a similar discussion going on regarding so-called "predatory journals."](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y) When talking about predatory journals, who is the actual scammer? The person submitting junk to a journal who will publish anything for money, to then use the publication record to defraud their employer? Or is it the facilitator of the scam, i.e. the publisher?
One last note about the misspellings on the email you received. I've heard some convincing arguments that misspellings on email scams are not a bug, but a feature. The idea is that the scammer is not looking for potential marks among sophisticated readers, but among those that either cannot see the misspelled words or don't care. So when you are turned off by the misspellings, you are in fact filtering yourself out and are not going to waste the time of the scammer. The only people who contact the scammer are thus self-selected pre-screened as easy marks.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is how I believe the actual scam works. There is some poor sod who has a low quality research paper and who wants it to appear in a reputable journal by unethical means if need be. Maybe they wrote it themselves, maybe it is also plagiarized somewhere or ChatGPT generated or something. It might be good enough for a paper-mill but a reputable journal will reject it without a second thought.
This is were you come in. You are a researcher who has published papers in reputable journals. You will be made a coauthor and your job will be to get this paper published in a reputable journal. Maybe your name alone suffices for that but that is unlikely. More likely you would have to do some real research and write a real paper and then get it published in a reputable journal.
How much work you have to do there is not really of interest to them, what counts is that the name of your collaborator appears as an author in a paper in a reputable journal. That is what you get paid for.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The basic issue is to write your own paper. If your author your own paper with help of colleeagues that can support the study you are in good shape. Anyone thinking they can use some external help to twrite to write a paper is in significant need of help from a scientific and an ethical perpsective.
In short write your own papers based on your own knoweledge. It is as clear as it is restrictive for any one who has poor insight into the ethics of scientic writing.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/07/06
| 875
| 3,833
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to evaluate the difference between two professional figures in the field of scientific computing, they are called Alice and Bob:
* Alice has earned a PhD in applied mathematics at a top 10 university, she has two publications in rather good journals, and had to write a certain number of python programs to prototype her findings. She has limited industrial experience acquired through a 7 months internship at the end of her master's, where she saw some basics of Fortran/C++ and parallel computing. Her area of expertise is computational mechanics and finite elements - she has developed some new algorithmic approaches there - but not how to write high performant and efficient low level code
* Bob has earned an industrial PhD from a university ranked 300/400 in the world, working full time for a well-known scientific computing company. He has two small conference papers where he mainly applied existing methods to his case and compared their performance. He constantly worked with Fortran/C++, parallel computing and low level code. The area of expertise is computational electromagnetism with finite elements, but the focus was implementing mathematical algorithms into a commercial software, and make them fast and robust
Unfortunately, the company of Bob cannot hire him at the end of the PhD, and he finds himself competing with Alice for an opening at another well known scientific computing company, offering a position as a scientific software developer in C++/Fortran, in industry.
Who has higher chances of being offered the position?
The application area of the job offer might be computational mechanics, electromagnetism, or fluid dynamics...
How does industry consider skills, experience and formal education?
*Disclaimer*: [cross posted](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/42996/research-profile-vs-coding-expertise-for-scientific-programming-career?noredirect=1#comment84847_42996) on Computational Science, where I was advised to also post to Academia Stack exchange.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not a recruiter or industry person so I doubt my opinion holds too much weight.
Bob has experience and, presumably, solid references from his previous industry job. I think he also has perfectly acceptable qualifications otherwise. If his hard skills and experience are a better match for the job I would think he is in the running. The caveat here is that it is possible (and this happens literally all the time) that a recruiter or hiring manager may be swayed by the shiny credentials of Alice and overlook her lack of industry experience. My guess is that both are really on pretty equal (although different) footing and the final decision would come down to what the company was looking for, how the interview went, how each candidate fits with the team, etc.
It's literally impossible to know past that. It could be that the boss graduated from Bob's university. Or it could be that there is a mid-level manage who is a snob and only wants people with prestigious degrees. It could be that there is a third person that has both a prestigious degree AND years of relevant experience.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. Bob will never be let go by his company, after they trained them to be the (world leading?) top expert in their specific application.
2. Both Bob and Alice are extremely competitive candidates and BOTH will find employment swiftly.
You are likely a fresh graduate thinking about your next move. It sounds like you are extremely risk averse and afraid of becoming jobless. With these qualifications that is not very rational, no matter your choice.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: At the end of the day, both will get an interview, and the respective personality of Bob and Alice will be the deciding factor.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/06
| 585
| 2,544
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first-year PhD student, and while I have an idea of what my research will involve, my path isn't very clear yet. My supervisor suggested that I work on a review paper as an achievement for the first six months of my PhD. I wrote the paper and sent it to my supervisor a month ago. However, we've had several rounds of edits and comments, with each set of comments asking for different things. It's been overwhelming, and I've started doubting my abilities. I'm anxious because dropping out and finding work isn't an option due to my student visa and the funding I am receiving from my supervisor for my PhD. If anyone has been through something similar, I'd appreciate hearing about your experiences and any ideas you have.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not a recruiter or industry person so I doubt my opinion holds too much weight.
Bob has experience and, presumably, solid references from his previous industry job. I think he also has perfectly acceptable qualifications otherwise. If his hard skills and experience are a better match for the job I would think he is in the running. The caveat here is that it is possible (and this happens literally all the time) that a recruiter or hiring manager may be swayed by the shiny credentials of Alice and overlook her lack of industry experience. My guess is that both are really on pretty equal (although different) footing and the final decision would come down to what the company was looking for, how the interview went, how each candidate fits with the team, etc.
It's literally impossible to know past that. It could be that the boss graduated from Bob's university. Or it could be that there is a mid-level manage who is a snob and only wants people with prestigious degrees. It could be that there is a third person that has both a prestigious degree AND years of relevant experience.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. Bob will never be let go by his company, after they trained them to be the (world leading?) top expert in their specific application.
2. Both Bob and Alice are extremely competitive candidates and BOTH will find employment swiftly.
You are likely a fresh graduate thinking about your next move. It sounds like you are extremely risk averse and afraid of becoming jobless. With these qualifications that is not very rational, no matter your choice.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: At the end of the day, both will get an interview, and the respective personality of Bob and Alice will be the deciding factor.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/06
| 1,331
| 5,389
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was navigating the [Graduate Journal of Mathematics](https://gradmath.org/), which is a comparatively new peer-reviewed mathematics journal. In its mission-statement, the journal mentions that it takes inspiration from a similar journal that was discontinued in 2000: *Le Journal des Elèves de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon*. There are lots of published articles from this journal, but it is closed now.
There are there other mathematics journals which were also discontinued at a certain stage. For example, [LMS Journal of Computation and Mathematics](https://www.lms.ac.uk/publications/jcm) was discontinued in 2015. I guess there are other journals in all subjects which are later discontinued and maybe later some new journals evolve from them just like the mentioned Graduate Journal of Mathematics.
My main motivation for the above questions is the following:
Suppose someone publishes an article in a journal and later the journal gets closed. How would people evaluate the work from a journal which is closed? I know the work will remain valid as long as there is no error in the article. But, would people acknowledge the work equally even after the journals is discontinued?
Especially, in some countries, a Ph.D. degree is awarded on the basis of articles published in a journal. Suppose, this journal is later discontinued. Should the author worry about their Ph.D. award even if the journal gets closed, provided their research work is valid?<issue_comment>username_1: If the journal was considered reputable at the time it published a paper there should be no issues afterwards. Some journals close for financial reasons, though I don't know about the specific case. Others are victims of a changing environment, with new publishers and new publishing methods coming along. Some specialized journals close because the field they cover has become de-populated as the larger field changes focus.
And no, a degree should never be at risk for such things. "Prediction is hard. Especially about the future." (Stolen, but I don't recall from where.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **You read it**. In principle this applies to all articles, including those published in prestigious journals. Prestigious journals still occasionally publish papers that [turn out to be completely wrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory#Publication_in_Nature).
When you don't understand the paper, then (and only then) you could rely on secondary factors like where the paper is published in, but it should be clear before you start that this method is indirect at best, and you should not use it if accuracy is important. If you're going to use the method anyway, you can Google for the journal's citation metrics before it closed.
As for what causes journals to close, every case I know of has been for financial reasons. Finally, the journal closing doesn't mean all the papers it's published are now incorrect, so a degree will never be revoked for this reason. See [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153661/what-are-the-criteria-for-degree-revocation) for scenarios where a degree might be revoked (note it is very rare to revoke a degree).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The only way to assess an article is to read it. This holds true for high impact journals, low impact journals, and defunct journals all the same. They are all capable of publishing incorrect results and I'm not sure it happens any less frequently at big, high impact journals.
As for what causes a journal to close, the answer, as others have said, is usually money. It is possible that a journal is shut down by a publisher for other reasons though. I believe Wiley has been trying to clean up Hindawi's lineup and has [shut down a number of journals](https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/02/hindawi-shuttering-four-journals-overrun-by-paper-mills/) that were "paper-mills". It's also possible that a journal published by a society or other independent group might just run out of steam. Or the field or niche of the journal might shrink or disappear. None of these reasons change how you assess an article (except the realization that a journal is a paper-mill, though in that case the articles will hopefully be [retracted outright](https://retractionwatch.com/2023/04/05/wiley-and-hindawi-to-retract-1200-more-papers-for-compromised-peer-review/)).
So, with that in mind, no degree should be at risk if a journal closes. Papers published in order to meet the requirements of the degree were still peer-reviewed and are forever available on the internet. Also, while publications are important for a PhD, I would argue that most universities are awarding the degree based on the dissertation. Which, while there may be a requirement to publish portions of it, is defended on its own merits.
The only reason I would be concerned is if there is evidence of academic misconduct. For example, there are more than a few cases of researchers having PhD's [revoked](https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/17/researcher-loses-phd-after-admitting-to-fudging-images/) for blatant dishonesty. I suppose you could also get in trouble if you exclusively publish in predatory journals that are discovered, shut down, and all their papers retracted (including your entire body of work). But that is an extreme case.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/07
| 527
| 2,294
|
<issue_start>username_0: I intend to apply for a green card in the US after my PhD. I want to use my family name in my publications. However, it's not the same name in my passport (legal name). How difficult will it be to prove that these are my publications when I apply for a green card? Will that be an issue at all?<issue_comment>username_1: This is partially a legal question and I am not a lawyer, and not an immigration attorney specialized in helping people with getting green cards and citizenship. I can only comment as an immigrant to the US myself and as a letter writer on rare occasions.
Presumably, you will need to address your qualifications sometimes after the Ph.D. when you submit your green card application or citizenship application. For this, you will need to have letters of recommendations. The letters are open to you as -- I think -- you will be the one that has to submit them. (I have written such letters and communicated with the applicant before and after.) Ask one or more of your letter writers to address the fact that you publish under a different name. At least some of the letter writers should comment on your publication record. Your Ph.D. advisor should be one of them. People that cite you, especially with some praise, should be another set of letter writers.
You need to find an immigration attorney or a (retired?) homeland security agent to find out whether they scan your CV for whether your claimed publications are truly yours, but I think that Homeland Security will rely mainly on the letter writers and on your degree to assess your scientific credentials.
Since artistic and scientific pseudonyms are not infrequent, Homeland should be used to them.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You can publish under any name you choose. I recommend consistency, however, unless you publish in more than one field, in which case, consistency within that field. You don't need to use a legal name, nor the name on your passport.
To make it simpler to claim your work, however, you can get an [Orcid Identifier](https://orcid.org) and associate that with your work. This won't leave you anonymous, of course, just the opposite.
For green cards and such, you need to comply with legal requirements, of course, but not for authorship.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/07
| 1,779
| 7,532
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are many "international conferences" that seem predatory (with a high degree of certainty). They usually provide a space for you to talk about any general issue you consider worth mentioning. In short, it's **pure punk**. *To some degree, this is really nice...* For a relatively reasonable fee, you are able to speak about anything you wish. Yet, if they are regarded as predatory, you might risk leaving a mark on your research.
BUT, the thing is, **what if you have to attend** some of these conferences because of **bureaucratic reasons**? Reputable conferences you usually go to were cancelled for this year and your **university requires you to attend** at least 3 conferences a year, while **no other reputable conferences remain**.
* If you need to attend such conference, is sending **just an abstract** harmless, in the context of future publication possibilities?
* **Do editors look** at your abstract-publication (OR paper-publication) history in these conferences?
* If you wish to publish an abstract only, shall you make it the least comprehensible as possible such that it seems as a **really niche topic?** Or go with the **generally generalized idea** such that you do not say anything new or concrete at all?
Further questions:
* If you have to send a paper, is it better to send **bullshit paper that is completely irrelevant** to anything you do or is it better for you to still send **just negligible part of your work (approx. 0.01 %)** that does not pose threat to self-plagiatorizing oneself in future?
* If you can speak foreign language that almost no one speaks (as I do), **is it better to publish a paper in your language if such conference allows it**, almost guaranteeing no serious publisher would be able to read it?
* **What do other attendees get** from these conferences? Do you **risk someone trying to steal** your work? Or do you risk no one being interested in what you want to say?
* If you have the money and you just want to say few things to some people (OR to look around the world), **where is actually the problem?**<issue_comment>username_1: These conferences are made for people like you, who work at institutions which require some academic output, and define that output as publications or attendance to a conference to present your work. [You provide the money, the conference organizers provide the certificate of attendance.](https://eos.org/opinions/the-alarming-rise-of-predatory-conferences) That is the end of the interaction. You can submit anything, in any language, about any subject.
The stated purpose of your institution's policy is likely to have you produce research, however misguided their metrics might be. So by going to these conferences and not actually presenting research results, you are defrauding your institution. However, and following your comment, it is also true that many institutions put their researcher in an impossible position: you must publish something, attend conferences, advice students, etc., but then they provide zero support to achieve those means. So I guess that you must play the game as the game is laid out to you.
Then to answer your questions: can't you just write a BS abstract, talking about whatever you know and point to future areas of research? As a friend once told me, **bullshit is to academia like dust is to a farmer**. So why can't you write something in the jargon of your discipline, something that the bureaucrats at your institution won't understand, but that will also not disappoint a future editor (as per your question.)? I'd just do that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: So I'll tackle your last question first since the answer is a bit philosophical.
>
> If you have the money and you just want to say few things to some people (OR to look around the world), where is actually the problem?
>
>
>
This is an interesting [read](https://www.technologynetworks.com/tn/articles/inside-a-fake-conference-a-journey-into-predatory-science-321619) on the subject of "predatory" conferences.
They exist because researchers need to get x number of presentations per year and many can't (or won't) go to larger, more reputable conferences. I think they are undoubtedly harmful to science as a whole. They clog up the works and I think they take advantage of those not experienced enough to recognize them.
Practically (and I suspect you know this already), the issue with predatory conferences is that they are often just crappy, phoned-in, and expensive (for what they are). There is no quality control, no real attempt at putting together a useful lineup of speakers, spam-y marketing tactics, and a distinct lack of transparency and academic integrity. While *you* may be submitting decent work, others may not be. There are certainly those who would pay to take advantage of the non-existent standards (this is arguably a big reason they are so prolific). So really, these conferences are not so different from predatory journals.
This is all to say that I don't like these conferences and would not recommend anyone attend and give the companies that run them any money or legitimacy. By doing so, you condone their lack of academic integrity. There are enough predatory journals, publishers, and conferences out there already (and untold thousands of bad papers as a result), we need to crack down on them not encourage them.
In your case, I suppose you have to do what you have to do to keep your job safe. So all of the above is a bit of a moot point.
**But** that's just me on a soap box. To answer your main questions generally, I do not think that sending an abstract off to one will actually harm *you personally*. Unless a substantial portion of your CV is made up of presentations/publications in predatory (or otherwise *very* low quality) venues, I would imagine most would just pass right over the one or two less-than-stellar ones. On top of that, I would not expect an editor to dig through your entire publication history anyway, there is just not the time for that (and really, a manuscript should be judged on its' own merits).
That being said, I would not send complete BS (even if it would be accepted without question). I think there is an element of personal integrity to this, you shouldn't let the venue dictate your standards for the work. Plus, you never know when someone *might* pick an abstract/presentation/publication to randomly read into. The perfect thing for a conference like this is some old dusty project or idea that hasn't gone anywhere and isn't interesting enough send somewhere impressive but can still be written up nicely.
I can't speak to your questions about submitting to a conference in another language. I suspect that it would not make a difference (unless perhaps you can find a more reputable conference that is just less mainstream).
As for what others get by attending, well they get the same thing as you - an easy publication/presentation. I would imagine that attendees could be anybody ranging from students who didn't quite realize the conference was considered low-quality to established researchers who just need another presentation on their CV to check a box. I'm not sure what the chances of someone stealing your ideas are. I'd guess that it would be no more or less likely than if you presented anywhere else. I suppose one could argue that you might be more likely to encounter a researcher with weak ethical standards, but personally I don't think that is a fair assumption.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/07
| 1,339
| 5,632
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there a possibility that an NSF proposal recommended for funding might not be awarded the funds? If so, what could be possible reasons? Also, how long does it typically take for a recommended proposal to be awarded to the university?<issue_comment>username_1: From an [NSF FAQ](https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/arch/awdfaqs.jsp):
>
> Program Officers "recommend" proposals for award but lack authority to commit NSF funds. After recommendation, applications are reviewed, primarily by non-scientist NSF grant administrators, for technical correctness. This process can take up to two months and an electronic award notification is then sent to the grantee sponsored research office. No grant is official and no NSF commitment final until this time. I almost always contact the Principal Investigator directly when I make the recommendation. This allows for a pleasant exchange in the midst of more difficult ones and also permits the applicant to plan ahead. It is extremely rare for a recommended project not to become an award and most researchers and institutions act with this realization in mind.
>
>
>
To your questions:
*Is there a possibility that an NSF proposal recommended for funding might not be awarded the funds?*
Yes. See above.
*If so, what could be possible reasons?*
The FAQ does mention "technical correctness".
For example, NSF finds something wrong the proposal (e.g., the PI is not eligible).
Also, changes in funding from Congress (who may decrease funding unexpectedly to NSF) might be another reason (this is a guess on my part).
*Also, how long does it typically take for a recommended proposal to be awarded to the university?*
The above FAQ notes: "This process can take up to two months and an electronic award notification is then sent to the grantee sponsored research office."
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Research administrator here. I have received hundreds of NSF awards and have never seen one declined after recommendation of funding, however, they do reserve the right for several reasons (previously answered). One of the main things to remember about any federal grant process -- Program Officers (PO) are *not* contract people. They can tell you things that are not entirely true. They may not be checking all of the detailed compliance, and while the science is great, there are other reasons it cannot be done.
As for the time it takes to get an award-- that depends largely on your directorate and solicitation. CAREER awards for example, are nearly always awarded in the January/February timeframe, and are submitted in July. In my extensive experience with [CISE](https://new.nsf.gov/about/directorates-offices#cise), they most frequently dump their funding at the end of the government fiscal year, so summer is frequently when you will hear back. However, I have seen some programs, e.g., the CCF program officer, has been responsive within only a few months (e.g. awarding in January/February), so it can vary by the program officer as well.
After the recommendation is made, the execution similarly will depend on the PO and also the science and its required compliance. If more information is required "just in time", then this can delay the award. They mostly require updated current and pending files prior to award, in addition to any other compliance-related documentation, e.g., around human subjects. They may also require a revised budget and budget impact statement. In my experience, most of the programs dump their budgets at the end of the government fiscal year, so I would expect everything to be executed by end of September, unless you/your institution delays the process. That is not a guarantee, but more a strong pattern of observation.
If you would like to spend now -- check your institution's rules on procuring an "advance account". You also should be entitled to spend 90 days prior to award, but that is tricky to do now without a guaranteed start date. Check with your assigned research administrator, and they will guide you appropriately.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: As other answers have noted:
Yes
>
> No grant is official and no NSF commitment final until this time.
>
>
>
However, likelihood is low if you've already received a "Recommmended" letter.
Can elaborate a bit as an academic who went to work with the feds and did proposal reviews (NASA though, not NSF, so gov. science general view).
There can be money issues:
* Budgets are often interim / projected at the feds, yet writers need to state how much money they "believe" they'll have and how many they expect to fund months in advance.
* The "color" of the money can occasionally be wrong. We believed this could be used for proposals, yet its only allowable for other purposes.
* NSF budget is historically generally stable, yet agency budgets can occasionally get adjusted.
* Money can also get shifted around within Directorates or Divisions. "We thought we were going to fund Infrastructure more in Biological Sciences, but we ended pushing that money into Emerging Frontiers." This mostly tends to happen if the agency has a major strategy change (went through Space Shuttle to SLS transition personally)
On the proposal side, from my experience, they often get binned into something like:
* We will fund this (even in our worst budget projection)
* We'll probably fund this (if its our moderate projection)
* We'd like to fund this (if we get more than we expect)
* We probably won't fund these (unless money floods in)
The first and second tiers probably get "Recommended" letters.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/07
| 568
| 2,356
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just discovered that the postdoc application I submitted two days ago contains a typo. It's likely due to accidentally touching my keyboard before the final compile. I mistakenly added a character to the journal name where my manuscript is currently under review. Should I send an email to the prospective professor to correct the typo?<issue_comment>username_1: No, you should not send an email to correct the typo.
The professor probably receives dozens or hundreds of emails every day, and an additional email to bring up a tiny mistake will likely not be appreciated. We all make typos sometimes. There is a chance they won't even notice, but if you send the email they *definitely* will notice.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In contrast to another answer here, yes, I think you should send that email. A postdoc application is important enough to warrant a follow-up. For a casual mail, probably not.
Sending this shows that you are aware of the error and not ashamed to admit to an error. That is a better message to send than that you are oblivious.
Just add that you are sorry you didn't notice before you hit "send".
I wouldn't be bothered at all receiving such a mail. Just keep it short.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Nobody cares. Mistakes happen in life. Reserve your emotional energy, your time, and the time of others to those things that matter. Typos in journal names, somewhere in the middle of a CV, do not.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I always thought typos were disastrous-- until I sat on a committee reading applications and selecting candidates for a major fellowship. Absolutely no one on the committee cared at all about a typo (or typos) on an application. The content was key, not the minor errors. So don't worry about a typo, and there is no need for you send a follow-up email.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: If that paper is an important contribution that will enhance your application. Send a pre-print and apologize for an apparent typo in your CV.
Otherwise do nothing and let it slide. If it comes up in an interview apologize for the oversight.
Simply sending a email with a correction of a single word carries more risks than rewards.
If you can use it to open a line of communication proactively then it will likely be better appreciated.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/07
| 695
| 2,923
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it common for labs with postdoc positions to ask candidates to request recommendation letters to be sent rather than directly asking from the references?
I've noticed a pattern where labs that ask for letters to be sent to them are less likely to consider me for the position seriously, i.e., either hire or decline within a timely manner and not to ghost me. I also have had PIs inviting me to their lab without asking for a letter, but I have not had luck with someone who asked to send it to them.
This trend has led me to believe that those asking for letters to be sent might not be seriously considering me and are simply collecting them as a backup. This has become problematic since repeatedly asking for letters has led to one of my references not sending the ones I ask for but sending the ones the faculty asks about me. I would appreciate your take on this as a faculty or former postdoc.<issue_comment>username_1: No, you should not send an email to correct the typo.
The professor probably receives dozens or hundreds of emails every day, and an additional email to bring up a tiny mistake will likely not be appreciated. We all make typos sometimes. There is a chance they won't even notice, but if you send the email they *definitely* will notice.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In contrast to another answer here, yes, I think you should send that email. A postdoc application is important enough to warrant a follow-up. For a casual mail, probably not.
Sending this shows that you are aware of the error and not ashamed to admit to an error. That is a better message to send than that you are oblivious.
Just add that you are sorry you didn't notice before you hit "send".
I wouldn't be bothered at all receiving such a mail. Just keep it short.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Nobody cares. Mistakes happen in life. Reserve your emotional energy, your time, and the time of others to those things that matter. Typos in journal names, somewhere in the middle of a CV, do not.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I always thought typos were disastrous-- until I sat on a committee reading applications and selecting candidates for a major fellowship. Absolutely no one on the committee cared at all about a typo (or typos) on an application. The content was key, not the minor errors. So don't worry about a typo, and there is no need for you send a follow-up email.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: If that paper is an important contribution that will enhance your application. Send a pre-print and apologize for an apparent typo in your CV.
Otherwise do nothing and let it slide. If it comes up in an interview apologize for the oversight.
Simply sending a email with a correction of a single word carries more risks than rewards.
If you can use it to open a line of communication proactively then it will likely be better appreciated.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/08
| 923
| 3,979
|
<issue_start>username_0: **TL; DR:** I want to switch my supervisor that I confirmed with before beginning my neuroscience PhD in September. I'm officially accepted into the program under this supervisor, signed the letter of intent and everything. But Ive been working with this supervisor for 6 months now and I really don't enjoy the research, and want to switch to a supervisor whose research I enjoy.
I tried researching this but to no avail - I am to begin my PhD in Neuroscience this fall (September 2023) with a supervisor that I got a chance to work with as a research tech starting this January 2023. I initially got my Masters in the Learning and Memory field, doing systems level (circuits) neuroscience, and as I was sending in applications to grad schools for PhD, a professor read my initial application and reached out to me and asked if I was interested in doing research with him. Initially, I thought this was great! A PI reaching out to me is huge! The only caveat was this lab was more of a genetics/neurodevelopment lab, looking at sensory systems at almost the molecular level. Initially I was very interested, and theoretically I still am, in the concepts and ideas of how our nervous system develops (my reason to even do grad school in neuro was to understand how we as humans become who we are, philosophy based). I figured it is a natural trajectory to delve deeper into the field of neuroscience. As I was initially applying for the September 2023 start time, this PI offered me a temporary paid research assistant position from January to September (there was an unfinished project he had no one to finish up), and then I'd officially begin my PhD and my own project in the fall. It's been 6 months now into this lab, I've attended lots of talks, have done a lot of work, and I'm understanding that I really don't enjoy this level of work. I'm not even enjoying the talks and conferences as much as I loved the learning and memory related talks and conferences from my masters.
So essentially, my question is, does anyone have any experience of switching supervisors after being accepted to a PhD program with a supervisor, BEFORE even officially beginning the program? I found a few professors in the same university who are looking for PhD students, for which I reaaaallyy enjoy the research (back to the learning and memory field). Any advice at all would be really helpful, I feel kind of stuck, but if I can switch my supervisor before beginning the program, would that be an issue? I don't quite know how to navigate this scenario, and I tried googling it many, many times, but there isn't an answer for this specific scenario. I am almost afraid I'd be released from the program itself switching so early on (maybe they think I'm indecisive). Should I contact my prospective supervisor first and see if he'd even accept me? So as to not lose my current spot? This is in North America by the way.
Thank you so much ahead of time!!<issue_comment>username_1: PhD is a long term commitment and will essentially decide your journey. I would recommend that if you don’t like to do PhD in a certain area and would like to switch to another area that’s a good enough reason to switch. Just come out clean with your advisor. Most faculty is pretty understanding that you would like to pursue some other area. You can also go and meet with the faculty you are interested in and just have the first meeting set up to get better understanding about their group. I think this happen often in academia and a simple talk with both the faculty would be an easy solution.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: This is ok to do, but make sure that you secure a new advisor before you quit the current one! Many programs require you to have an advisor, and if you don't have one, they might assign you a placeholder advisor that is not engaged in research. Or you might end up with a worse advisor and a broken relationship with your current one.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/08
| 492
| 2,056
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Taiwanese undergraduate student in chemistry studying in Taiwan (National Taiwan University). I want to apply chemistry PhD programs of top US universities (MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc) right after getting bachelor's degree. Although my target schools don't explicitly require journal paper publications, I am worried about my competitiveness compared to other applicants if I don't get one. So I wanna ask two questions as following supposing I get other factors done well (GPA 4.15 out of 4.3, TOEFL 105, and two years of research experience):
1. Do most successful applicants (like > 50%) have publications?
2. Are only papers in which I am the first author helpful?
Thank you for reading this somehow naive question. Thank you very much in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: 1. No, without publications people can get admission
2. No, papers with co-author also can be helpful
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In the US there is not an expectation to come into a graduate program with publications. In fact, it is fairly rare for an undergraduate to have a peer-reviewed publication under their belt (let alone a first author one). It would certainly make you more competitive, especially for top programs, but it isn't a requirement. It sounds like you already have a good application with plenty of research experience. That already puts you in a good spot - a publication is just the cherry on top at this point. As for being first author, that isn't necessary either. Having your name on any publication, regardless of position, is an accomplishment and will be helpful to your application.
Some unsolicited advice, don't get too caught up with name-brand schools - admissions are competitive and can be almost random (or at least they can feel that way). There may be a program out there that aligns with your goals but isn't at the very tip top of the rankings. Don't be afraid to search around to find a good fit. There are plenty of excellent universities to choose from.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/08
| 435
| 1,835
|
<issue_start>username_0: My thesis is structured as:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Study A
4. Study B
5. Conclusion
Appendix
Bibliography.
I have a plot that summarizes both study A and study B. The logical place to put it would be the conclusion chapter, but my guide told me to make it text based. I think it's just his preference rather than a formatting rule. But I would put it in the conclusion chapter only if no other way is present.
I was thinking of making it a chapter 5: Results and Discussion, but there isn't enough content for an entire chapter.<issue_comment>username_1: 1. No, without publications people can get admission
2. No, papers with co-author also can be helpful
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In the US there is not an expectation to come into a graduate program with publications. In fact, it is fairly rare for an undergraduate to have a peer-reviewed publication under their belt (let alone a first author one). It would certainly make you more competitive, especially for top programs, but it isn't a requirement. It sounds like you already have a good application with plenty of research experience. That already puts you in a good spot - a publication is just the cherry on top at this point. As for being first author, that isn't necessary either. Having your name on any publication, regardless of position, is an accomplishment and will be helpful to your application.
Some unsolicited advice, don't get too caught up with name-brand schools - admissions are competitive and can be almost random (or at least they can feel that way). There may be a program out there that aligns with your goals but isn't at the very tip top of the rankings. Don't be afraid to search around to find a good fit. There are plenty of excellent universities to choose from.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/08
| 1,533
| 6,522
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just finished my first year studying physics but honestly I didn't like it at all. I started studying a day before every exam and skipped almost every class. However, I love physics, I read books at home, watch documentaries and research on my own. I think it is the most beautiful field of human knowledge, but I hate the way it is teached at university and I really prefer experimental physics over theoretical physics.
I'm also very interested on AI and data analysis, so I'm thinking of switching careers to data science.
Would it be possible to work in physics research with a degree on data science? (With physics reasearch I mean doing data analysis of experiments and observations in a research group, for example to map galaxies, to classify particle crashes from a particle accelerator, etc.)
I think studying data science may be the best option for me because with the marks I have on physics I won't be able to do research. But I think I will be able to excel at data science, I'm studying every day on my own and taking online course after online course.
So what do you think? I don't want to continue with the physics degree, but I don't want to “say goodbye” to physics forever. Any advice is appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> However, I love physics, I read books at home, watch documentaries and
> research on my own.
>
>
>
Engaging with popular books and documentaries on physics can be exciting and inspiring, but it's almost completely unlike actually performing scientific research. Actually doing the research involves a lot of inescapable drudgery: obsessively going over complex chains of mathematical reasoning, debugging huge and perhaps obscurely written computer programs, hours spent aligning components on an optics table, etc. All stuff that has to be done, but may not provide the easy thrill that comes from reading about 'big ideas'.
A friend studying geology went on two research cruises in the south Pacific in their first two years of graduate school. Exciting! Exotic ports! Big picture conversations about geology in the mess! The next three years were spent in a sub-basement, looking through a microscope, picking out little bits of volcanic glass from crushed rock samples using tiny watercolor paintbrushes. Nature's secrets are frequently hidden behind curtains of unbearable tedium. I don't intend to be discouraging, but you can't just blow off the hard, boring bits of a subject.
>
> Would it be possible to work in physics research with a degree on data
> science?
>
>
>
Maybe? It wouldn't be an easy path unless you turn out to be an absolute star in data science. Most physics laboratories just use their grad students and post-docs do all the programming and data science work. As @anyon mentions in a comment, some of the very biggest centers like CERN and NASA *do* hire data science specialists. However, counting on that means narrowing your choices to a *very* few employers and geographic locations, and they still might expect you to have a significant formal background in physics or astronomy. It's my experience that the life sciences labs are bigger employers of data science and software staff than physics labs.
For the moment at least, data science does provide a lot of opportunities. If you find you like data science work, it might be a good choice. With some luck and flexibility you might eventually be able to land a spot in a physics research team. Just be aware that you are aiming at a tiny niche, and be prepared to pivot in other directions.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: My close friend, a professor at a highly respected university, is in charge of a physics lab doing nano- and biotechnologies. Having a wealth of experimental results to process, he is now seeking to hire a postdoc or a highly advanced PhD student proficient in big data. However, the professor has firmly stated that a candidate should have taken the intermediate-level courses in physics back in their undergraduate years. It doesn't matter for this professor if a candidate has a BS degree in physics or chemistry or engineering -- but (s)he absolutely must be educated in physics at the intermediate college level, at least.
This story is, of course, just one datapoint -- but, trust me, a representative one.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: No
==
I've spent around 12 years in university studying/working in physics and if you didn't study it, there's no way you'll ever work in it professionally. It is an insanely hard subject. Physics requires advanced mathematical skills and builds strongly on top of its own concepts, like Maths. You will have no success for example in electrodynamics, if you didn't already study classical mechanics for basic concepts like Lagrangians and Hamiltonians, let alone all the math required for doing calculus on vector fields, green functions, etc.
Frontline physics is HARD, for the very sole reason that if it were easy, it would have been done already. For example, data science would come in very handy in particle accelerators where you need to correlate datapoints quickly. But to get a basic understanding of relativistic scattering physics reallistically takes a masters degree in physics (5 years studying) and that's the "easy" textbook examples. If you already knew you'd want to focus on that, it could probably be done in 3, if you gave it all.
Physics is a really competetive field, with lots of PhD students and less post doc let alone permanent positions. Not to take away from data science, but at the end of the day, it's math, and physicists are good at applied math. I don't see any reason why a PI would choose a non-physicist over a physicist.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Yes (with reservations)
=======================
I would refer you primarily to this great answer on the topic of the "research computing" career path
<https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/178616/173832>
Many national labs and universities have dedicated groups of programmers that play a critical role in scientific research. This is more like being a techinician/lab worker than a post-doc. You write code for researchers, or help them improve their existing codebases and workflow.
This is becoming an increasingly common and recognized career path, see e.g. the The [United States Research Software Engineer Association](https://us-rse.org/)
Source: I work as a data scientist/scientific programmer in a small earth science research group
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/07/09
| 627
| 2,450
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the publications section of the CV, what is the best title for articles that have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed conference or journal and have only been published in the [arxiv.org](https://arxiv.org) ?
How about "**near future publications**" ?<issue_comment>username_1: If your intention is that they are preprints intended for later formal publication, I'd list them as "Work in Progress".
Another alternative is to list them as "Unreviewed Publications", though I'm not sure I recommend that. But it is accurate if you consider them finished and don't intend to submit them to a publisher/conference.
The former is a definite plus if you are seeking employment. The latter may have issues.
In a "Work in Progress" section you could mark those that are "nearing submission" as such. But it is (IMO) useful to also have some projects there that are in their earlier stages.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The official word used by NIH is "Preprints". I believe this is the correct industry term. Some links for more information:
* [NIH](https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2023/02/08/nih-preprint-pilot-expands-to-include-preprints-across-nih-funded-research/)
* [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprint)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: **Accepted but not yet published:** accepted, forthcoming, to appear, in press
**Under review but not yet accepted:** under review, submitted to [journal/conference]
**Not yet submitted:** manuscript, preprint
**Not even finished yet:** work in progress
The term "near future publications" would only be appropriate for the category of accepted but not yet published work, but even there it sounds strange and unidiomatic. I have never seen anyone use this term before, and there are many better alternatives.
For any other category it is simply not appropriate at all because you do not in fact know whether your submission will be accepted or not. It would be like listing "near future jobs" on your CV simply because you are convinced that you will definitely ace the job interview.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Simply write your paper and add an arXiv preprint with the URL there. Here is an example:
<NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>
"Generalizing Backpropagation for Gradient-Based Interpretability" arXiv preprint, <https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03056>
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/07/09
| 1,494
| 6,346
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am the first author for a review paper with ~10 authors. I wrote the full first draft entirely alone (about 8,000 words and 200+ references). Then, I opened the (very polished) draft to all authors for contributions.
Some authors made very small revisions. Another author (Author A) sent me one page of text, and asked me to add parts of it if I wanted. I did add their text throughout the manuscript.
While preparing for submission, I asked each author to add themselves into the CRediT system. Later, I noticed in the "author contribution" section that 3 names were listed as "Writing-original draft": Myself, Author A, and Author B.
I understand why Author A listed their name. Even though I wrote the original (very polished) first draft entirely alone, Author A did later write one page of text... enough to warrant more than a "Writing-revisions and editing" contribution. So, I agreed with that.
However, Author B not only did not write anything substantial, they did not write anything (even a single minor revision) at all. The document has lived entirely on Google Docs, so I can see they made not a single revision or comment.
Author A and B are both senior authors. In my head, I imagine two scenarios:
1. Author A and B both wrote the full page, and only Author A sent it to me. In this case, Author B deserves the credit.
2. Author B noticed that Author A listed themselves as having written the original document, and assumed they could just do the same. After all, Author B could not see that Author A wrote a full page separately, since they sent it to me behind the scenes, and I added the full page directly myself (under my name on the Google Doc). In this case, Author B does not deserve the credit, and acted unethically (in my opinion).
In any case, I recognize it is unfair/useless for me to make such assumptions. I would like to know the truth, and I plan to ask Author B.
I have not seen many questions like this on StackExchange. I see much more authorship byline questions, but not so much authorship CRediT questions.
My questions are:
1. Is the culture around author CRediT creating this possibility that Author B *might* have acted unethically? I'm sure it varies across fields (I'm in biology).
2. Is it even worth asking Author B? I suppose this depends on Question (1), and, if it is ingrained in the culture for a senior author to claim CRediT unfairly, then better to just move on and not work with them as much? I am only at the graduate student level; Author B is a professor.
Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: I am sorry to hear it happened with you. You obviously did a fantastic job -- congratulations on pulling through wiring such an impressive piece!
If the document tracking system (git or Google Doc in your case) says Author B did not wrote anything, and Author B did not bother to present a proof of his contribution to you and other authors, then it is natural to assume author B did not actually contribute to writing. If Author B claims it via the CRediT system, it is natural to assume they free-ride on the work of others, hence act unethically by passing the work of others as (partly) their own.
Academic culture in many places is very hierarchical and protects established professors and directors of big labs, even when their acts are blatantly unethical and wrong. Depending on your local culture, it may be safer for your career to let it go. But please do not feel bad about this (Prof B should feel bad about this, not you), and do not allow this situation to gaslight you into thinking that bad acts of others towards you are somehow justified. They are not justified, and it is just a reflection of a poor state of our current academic culture that such things still happen.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I tend to follow the CRediT guidelines generously under the assumption that all of the authors did in fact do significant work. If there is *some* evidence that someone contributed to a particular domain, then I try not to split hairs. But if there is *no* evidence of a particular contribution then an author shouldn't be listed. The entire point of the CRediT taxonomy is to be *more* transparent not less.
To try to answer your first question, CRediT is a relatively recent development - within the past 10 or so years. So I don't know that their are really ingrained cultures around it. It hasn't been common for all that long to include an author contribution statement. That being said, I'm sure the same people who would fudge an author list would have no problem fudging a contribution statement. Also, I'm sure a percentage of people see them as just a box to tick, so to speak, and so might not be inclined to put too much thought into it. I hope that answers your first question.
As for the second question, it would be reasonable, since there appears to be no evidence that author B actually wrote anything. Since you're a bit lower in the hierarchy, you might try to be diplomatic about it. But even that might stir the pot (whether or not that is worth it is up to you). You would definitely be in the right though. Best case, it might be that there was a misunderstanding or some measure of laziness involved. It might be that you were correct in your initial assessment. From there, what you do depends on how secure you feel and how far you are willing to fight it. It's a shame that this sort of thing happens.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There is an option you haven't considered yet.
3. Author B has been working on several papers, being at a professor
level they can't remember each one individually and so just took a
quick guess at how they contributed to the paper before moving onto something else more
interesting/something they view as more relevant. They may also
consider it bureaucratic paperwork and so are just ticking the
boxes. Infact maybe they contributed initial writing to another
paper on the same topic and confused it with yours.
Coming from physics I won't say anything about the culture. But its worth asking Author B if you trust them. If not you could also ask Author A or anyone else who supervises you and may be able to provide insight/back you up/prevent you falling into a political trap, then depending on the response ask Author B.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/07/09
| 1,264
| 5,478
|
<issue_start>username_0: Summary: I want to apply for a grant with current group at university X. However, I will likely decline it if awarded because I actually want to work with different group at university Y (no hard offer yet though). Is it ethical to apply knowing I might decline the grant?
---
I am currently a post-doc and with my new PI we have discussed about me applying for a grant to get independent funding for another two years. I actually asked myself whether I can apply for a grant, since I prefer to be as independent as it gets, and also my mentors mentioned multiple times that it is rather important for an academic CV.
Now after being a while in the group, and after learning that two of my friends got PI positions in quite prestigious universities, I am thinking to spend only a year here, and then move on to work with one of them.
However I would still like to finalise the grant proposal I am prepairing and submit it, so that I can have an awarded grant on my CV, even though there are chances that I will not accept it if awarded.
Would that be considered questionable or unethical practice?<issue_comment>username_1: If you cannot envision a scenario in which you would accept the grant money, then you should not apply. It is a waste of everybody's time (including your own—why waste your time applying for a grant you aren't going to accept when you could be spending your time doing something productive?).
On the other hand, if you can see a scenario (however unlikely) in which you would accept the grant, there is no reason not to apply.
It sounds to me like you are searching for a job. You are hoping to get a good "PI position" at a prestigious university, so I assume that you are applying for those kinds of positions. You also have the option of applying for grant funding which will allow you to continue in your current position for some period of time (with the added bonus that it will be a CV builder).
Also, note that, depending on how the grant is structured, you may be able to "take it with you" if-and-when you are offered a position somewhere else, or your current institution may be able to use the funding even if you are not there. So the likelihood that you will accept the grant (assuming it is awarded, which is not a certainty) may be influenced by these kinds of factors.
Hence it seems like there *is* a scenario under which you would take the grant money, i.e. you are not offered any other position, and require independent funding for the next year or two. As such, I see no problem with applying for the grant.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Research administrator here (the type of person's time you would waste preparing this, haha). The first problem you have is that as a postdoc, you are generally not entitled to apply for a grant by definition of your position. You need to look into how PI rights work at your current institution. At the R1 institution I work for, we would not allow you to apply without a ladder faculty member listed as Co-PI/Co-I. There is a somewhat lengthy application to discourage postdocs from applying without the full support of their PI and a substantial plan of action in the event of an award. As the grant is awarded to the institution and not the PI, should you leave, we would reserve the right to keep the grant and remove you from the research team.
Generally when academics transfer institutions, it is best practice to move the grant with the researcher, however it is the discretion of the institution to do this; not the PI. If the Dean or Chair wished to keep the grant with your sponsoring PI, they could do so. We always require a plan as to what happens when someone transfers out before allowing these types of individuals to apply for a sponsored award. If they have a position in hand, we ask that they apply through their new institution. They can usually do this as long as the proposed start date is after the appointment start date.
As for wasting time -- the truth is that a great deal of proposals are a waste of time -- many faculty do not spend the time required to do a good job (and it's evident even to administrators), and that includes senior faculty at R1 institutions. You didn't mention scientific field or country, but in the US, NIH has K awards for what you describe. Otherwise, postdocs sometimes help prepare applications with their PI and in the US at least, can be instead listed as senior personnel rather than Co-PI/Co-I. This makes it easier to be included as "important" without requiring PI rights from the institution. Should you leave the institution after an award, you should be able to get a subaward at no additional cost with most US federal sponsors.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: From an R1, U.S. math perspective, you absolutely should apply for a grant at the post-doc stage, and accept it, so that you can (?!?) be a PI on a grant... whether or not you need money for anything. For some decades now, having National Science Foundation grants or other federal funding is really essential for getting tenure... because having the federal government pay you to do your work is apparently the highest praise? :)
And, very likely any grant is portable to some extent...
So, again, to be clear, it's not necessarily whether you need the money for equipment or summer salary or anything, but that getting a good grant funded is some sort of certification of the quality of your work.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/07/09
| 2,770
| 11,727
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have graduated last year from a PhD in pure mathematics and I intended to do some machine learning in industry. However, seems like no place takes me seriously so I began asking colleagues from industry why. They claim I am on the one hand overqualified to do a "usual" programming job but on the other hand under-qualified to do a "serious algorithms job" as I have never worked in my PhD on applied computer science/Machine Learning.
One colleague from a technology company said
>
> Doing a PhD in pure math was a sin. Repent for your sins by doing a post-doctoral degree in applied Machine Learning.
>
>
>
What do you think about this idea of doing applied postdoc just in sake of "cleansing" a pure PhD from the cv? I feel deeply traumatized from the academic poisonous environment I had to suffer during my PhD training and I don't think it'd be any different committing more to the same evil. On the other hand, can it really help improve my value in industry ? Let alone when applying for bigger companies?<issue_comment>username_1: Since I have a pure math PhD but worked in CS (academia) throughout my career, I don't see any need to "expunge" a degree. You are in a good place to learn computer algorithms in a short time since you have the background on which they are based.
The problem would only be gaining some recognition in a different field. I've also done that. Plan to attend some (many) conferences and get to know people. Industry folks go to these as well as academics. Try to form collaborative relationships and work (with others) on a few papers. It would (IMO) be faster and easier than taking an additional degree, much of which would bore you, I suspect.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This quote seems like a silly attempt at a joke, combined with a serious attempt at gatekeeping. The majority of people working "senior" AI / dev jobs do not have any serious background in maths, be it pure or applied, and won't be competitive with a candidate with Pure Maths PhD. They have some advantage by "knowing the ropes", i.e. the processes in their current workplace, libraries, people one need to please to pass a review, some tricks of the trade, etc. But doing a PhD prepared you intellectually to do serious research at a much more rigorous and detailed level.
Don't let anyone tell you that working hard for your education was anything other than a noble and difficult act. Don't let anyone tell you that you don't deserve your dream position because your educational profile is different from theirs. You have a terminal degree, there is no degree higher than a PhD. Keep applying to top companies and eventually your achievements will be noticed by people who value and recognise them. Good luck.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I can understand why a company would be worried about hiring a pure math PhD who doesn't have applied experience. I have known a lot of mathematicians, engineers, and people who have migrated in one direction or the other. It's not a guarantee that you can implement something -- or even develop something that CAN be implemented -- just because you can write a mathematical proof about it.
So: The piece that appears to be missing from your resume in order to get a serious algorithms job is proof that you can take things from the conceptual high-level pure math domain and implement them in code. If you want those jobs, the question you should ask yourself is: How can I fill that gap?
A postdoc is an obvious way to do that, which is why your colleague suggested it. You will be hired to do some specific implementation work which will result in products (papers) that you can point to, and you'll have someone who can be a reference and vouch for your ability to make those connections. That puts you in a very strong position.
If you are traumatized enough by your experience as a PhD student that even spending one or two more years in academia feels unmanageable, break down those two benefits and look for other ways to get them. You could implement some aspect of your PhD work in a code base that you put on GitHub. You could write about that and put it on ArXiv. You could reach out and make contacts with people who you think might have applications that your code base would be useful for, and ask if they would be interested in collaborating.
Just the first thing -- the GitHub repo -- might be enough to get you hired. If it's not, each subsequent step will put you in a stronger position. But each of those steps takes time. Again, this is why a postdoc is handy: You get paid.
The other option you mentioned was "usual" programming jobs. You say you are overqualified, but you also didn't mention your level of expertise in software engineering. Could it be that you are underqualified in that regard? Again, GitHub repositories will help you if you have that problem. You can also take one of those coding boot camps, but it is much harder to get placed with a company through one of those programs these days than it used to be. There are programs aimed specifically at people who did a little programming in their non-CS PhD program and now want an industry job that uses a lot of programming that might be helpful, though.
If you are already extremely proficient in programming, so the only problem is that you are overqualified, I will remind you that you can list your PhD as work experience rather than education. If you focus on the transferable skills and minimize the cachet you expect a PhD to have, it will probably read less to a hiring manager that you are overqualified. But I suspect, given your background, that it's more likely that you are simultaneously too expensive to hire (because of the PhD) while also being underqualified in other important areas (ie with practical experience collaborating on large code bases) for the lower-level software engineering jobs.
From the perspective of a hiring manager, the PhD can mean you will require a higher salary due to company policy, or because they expect you to negotiate harder because you have the degree. The PhD can also mean that you'll ditch this job as soon as you get one where you can use the PhD, which is expensive because replacing and training people takes a lot of time. I haven't been on a hiring committee for machine learning jobs in industry but I've had an inside look at several hiring processes over the years and the jobs tended to go to someone who would grow into the role rather than the most highly qualified candidate because they were expected to want to stay longer in the position. If you're really good -- much better than the other people applying -- the hiring manager is more likely to be willing to take that risk. If you have an equivalent level of practical experience with software engineering to someone without the PhD, they may not be willing to take the risk. (Also, please understand that not all hiring managers will feel this way -- a minority will view a PhD as a plus no matter what.)
I hope some of this is helpful for you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: There are no real post-doctoral degrees, but I agree with your colleague, though not with the facetiousness:
You have shown a great collection of skills by getting a degree in Mathematics.
An employer might worry about getting you up to speed on ML, which has considerably evolved in the last years. People in your situation that are doing research work have progressed quite a bit, including in the personal skills that they now possess. Doing a Post-doc in ML would be great to overcome this problem. In a related manner, writing papers in ML would also help.
**There is no need to "expunge" your doctorate.** If you can prove that you acquired ML skills, your degree gives you some advantages over people who do not have the degree of abstraction, intuition, and precision that you acquired. Others in ML of course have acquired those through a different road.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: The key issue here is that your qualifications do not match employers' requirements if you are looking for AI jobs. They seek (and find!) employees with a software and algorithmic background, and for all of the hard work that went into your PhD (of which you should be proud!), you just don't have those qualifications. It is, then, not a surprise that your applications do not lead anywhere: You would also not be hired as a sociologist for a think tank, or as a welder by a steel manufacturer, PhD be damned! Having a PhD does not make you qualified for jobs outside your area of expertise.
The way forward then is to either (i) work on having the qualifications the employers for your dream jobs seek, and being able to document them, or (ii) change your target for jobs to things you *actually* are qualified for already.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Your sample is non-representative. I have at least 1.5 acquaintances who have a theoretical math Ph.D. and post-doctoral work - category theory - and have gotten work doing on some some deep-learning-AI-thing, or cryptography.
Also, you are not over-qualified for a usual programming job - you're under-qualified for it: A "code-monkey" requires knowledge and experience with programming languages and development tools more than they need deep abstract insights which a Math Ph.D. affords them.
>
> What do you think about this idea of doing applied postdoc just in sake of "cleansing" a pure PhD from the cv?
>
>
>
You're thinking like an academic. Don't do that. Take some time to:
* Read up on ML classically (maybe [this](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7)) or the fashionable deep-learning-by-neural-networks stuff.
* Study and practice a programming languages (Python is quite popular where it comes to ML), perhaps contributing to some relevant FOSS project if you find one that interests.
As you do this, you can add relevant items to your resume; and in an interview, you could explain how you are making your way into the field. Also,
* Try to find some "meetup"-like activities in your area regarding ML or the sector of industry you want to get into, and attend
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> idea of doing applied postdoc just in sake of "cleansing" a pure PhD from the cv
>
>
>
I work in the industry and hire people. I do not know what a "postdoc" is.
I see on your CV that you have a PhD in "mathematics", we want to hire for "machine learning". This does not really match.
I look at your experience in machine learning and I do not see anything.
Next.
---
You may be more lucky but it is likely to be the way your CV is perceived.
The only reasonable way to get out of this is to show that you can do machine learning. Depending on where you are, the industry and the alignment of planets, this may be
* a degree that says "machine learning" (or "data science" - close enough). The fact that it says "postdoc" does not change anything, it could very well be a new degree from scratch.
* a serious set of things that show that you have experience in the matter (projects, etc.).
Please keep in mind that the path your CV takes into a company is of uttermost importance. If you apply on the web site your chances are slim. If the CV goes through someone inside the company who can advertise your added value then the chances are much higher.
Your degree in math can be very valuable to companies that take machine learning seriously, to the point of enhancing the *mathematics* behind (and not just throwing data and hoping for the best). You need to find the companies that are in the first case and then apply to the people who work on the enhancements.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/07/09
| 687
| 2,945
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the process of submitting a research paper to an IEEE journal. While going through the submission guidelines, I came across the following instruction:
>
> * The use of artificial intelligence (AI)–generated text in an article shall be disclosed in the acknowledgements section of any paper
> submitted to an IEEE Conference or Periodical. **The sections of the
> paper that use AI-generated text shall have a citation to the AI
> system used to generate the text.** [source](https://attend.ieee.org/ssci-2023/ai-generated-text/)
>
>
>
For the creation of my research paper, I typically write an initial draft that includes all the necessary citations. Then, I employ the assistance of an AI tool (specifically GPT) to rephrase or elaborate on my initial text. This AI does not autonomously generate any text; instead, it helps to enhance and polish the original draft, improving its readability and grammatical accuracy.
My confusion lies in the interpretation of the aforementioned guideline. Given that all of the text in my paper has been "enhanced" or "refined" by AI, even though it doesn't originate any content, does it need to be cited as per the guideline? How should I proceed with acknowledging the use of AI in my paper under these circumstances?
I would appreciate any insights or suggestions on how to comply correctly with the IEEE's policy regarding AI-generated text.<issue_comment>username_1: I do not think that the meaning of this request to cite the AI-text generator only refers to instances when the AI "created" the text.
In your comment you mention plagiarism, in a way from which I gather that you kind of equate using AI tools for text generation as bordering on plagiarism. Any respectable scientific publication should be free of plagiarized passages anyway. So if you equate using AI to generate text as bordering on plagiarism than the only meaning of that request to cite AI use should be the one you mentioned: using it to improve texts grammatically that you have written yourself. A short note like "To improve readability and quality of language, all parts of this paper have been grammatically revised using XXX system." would be the best way to do it.
It sounds like you feel at least a bit uncomfortable to admit that you used AI - because otherwise you would not ask if this definition means that you have to indicate the AI use. If you are not willing to freely admit that you used AI on your paper (unless absolutely necessary), and consider AI use in any more extensive form than you used yourself as (bordering on) plagiarism, maybe you should evaluate if the gain that comes from using AI is really woth it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The guidelines are pretty clear. If there is any AI generated text in the manuscript then it needs to be disclosed. It doesn't matter for what reason.
Incidentally, plagiarism isn't just copied text.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/09
| 4,332
| 18,520
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in my last year of studies for a bachelor's degree in software engineering and I am currently considering different options for my career path. I don't have any background in medicine, but I would love to work in the medical/research field, specifically relating to cancer treatments. What would be the best/quickest way of doing so, considering my background? **I don't plan on doing an additional bachelor's degree in medicine**.
Here are some options I came up with:
* Find a full-time position in biotech after my bachelor's degree
* Do a master's degree in software engineering and find a full-time position in biotech
* Do a master's degree specifically in biomedical engineering (if possible)
* Doing an additional master's degree in biomedical engineering<issue_comment>username_1: No additional bachelors is likely to be of much help. It would only get you an entry level position, likely far removed from research. You need something more advanced and more related to medical research. Ideally a doctorate. In the US, you could probably apply directly to a doctoral program, but elsewhere it might be more of a problem.
But a cure for cancer, or any other complex disease, requires training and skills in medical research. That is a long way from SWE. The processes are very different.
Yes, medical researchers need some amount of programming to back up their studies, but that is just support.
A research based masters in the biomedical area, whether engineering or not, might be enough.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I am a research administrator who has supported a machine learning professor for 8 years. She doesn't do cancer research, but she is a CS person who works with hospitals and analyzes their data for them (mostly in autism, diabetes). CS departments are getting a lot more time with health data. You could look into a job like that, e.g., as a post-bac if you are interested in moving up into an academic rung. Alternatively, I have a research administration friend who works at a Cancer Institute. You could do IT-like work at a Cancer Institute or other type of hospital and support the work that way. Research administrators frequently cite supporting research as why we stay in the field (which is incredibly stressful). I have been essential in training PIs in how to get grants for 15 years--sure, I'm not curing cancer or discovering the next big thing--but I know that I am crucial in making those discoveries happen; faculty tell me this, because they don't want to do the work I do, but it is essential if they are going to run a lab at all.
Consider using a job search portal with a job skill you have, e.g., "Agile", "python", etc. + "cancer". You just have to know what type of job you are looking for (academic vs. staff). If you look at a program administrator type job in CS that is oriented towards health, that might be a really great fit. It is incredibly difficult to find qualified folks who will do that work.
Here's [an example](https://www.higheredjobs.com/search/details.cfm?JobCode=178450822&Title=Project%20Manager%20III%20%2D%20Cancer%20Center%20%28UPDATED%29).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Since you have no experience in wet lab, you have to go down the path of computational research.
In order to do that you have to take a thesis about Cancer research in Masters. Your supervisor must be from the field you are looking for.
Next, you should go for a Ph.D. as Masters won't be enough to gather experience.
After a huge amount of self-study, you will be able to become a researcher in Cancer research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you want to be a researcher you will need a masters degree (and eventually a phd). For someone like you with a techinical background (Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics, Software Engineering etc), who wants to go into biological research you should be looking for a masters in Systems Biology or Bioinformatics.
I have a similar background (Maths/CS undergraduate) and I made the jump into biological research after my PhD, it was a learning cliff - but fun! I now teach systems biology masters students and we take students with all different backgrounds. Those with technical skills do very well in our masters programme and often end up going on to PhDs and becoming researchers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: As others have mentioned, it will be difficult for you to pivot into the research side of things without doing a significant amount of retraining in the domain. It's also been mentioned that this will therefore cut off the "glamorous" side of the job. However, let's be realistic: Research is about incremental advancement. Disruptive change can happen, but it's incredibly rare -- increasingly so, I would anecdotally say -- as science becomes a huge enterprise involving hundreds or even thousands of people. My point being, there isn't really a glamorous side!
This is a good thing, as it will allow you to focus on your strengths; that is, software engineering. Modern medical and genetic research -- which covers, e.g., somatic mutation (cancer) -- involves *huge* amounts of data and sophisticated tools to process and analyse these data. The algorithms for these tools are often designed by domain experts, but software in science has a reputation for being, let's say, "thrown together". (Which makes sense, given the economic factors at play.) A software engineer thus has quite a bit of leverage to improve existing tools or develop new methods that scale with big data (and I mean really big; petabytes).
**tl;dr** I would look into a masters in bioinformatics. This will give you the domain grounding you'll need -- although it's not strictly necessary, but will give you an edge -- to get into the space and make positive contributions to the field.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: As a software engineer, you can do a lot of work in medical fields with little to no medical backgrounds. You will obviously have to learn about the subject you work on, but rarely to a point where you'd need an entire undergrad on a related subject to understand it. However, as it was pointed by other answers, you'll struggle to pivot to something entirely focused on biomedical, such as "cancer treatment".
It obviously depends on your location, and which type of medical research you want to focus on, but I'll give you the example I know about, which is mostly mine and people I work with.
I did my undergrad in software engineering and a Master in AI. After that I found a PhD in deep learning, which is applied to a certain type of medical imaging, specifically on the subject of lungs cancer. The goal is to develop and improve this new modality to replace the current gold standard in cancer detection, to improve the diagnostic and prognosis of cancer.
I also did an internship where I worked on a totally different imaging modality, which was used for blood vessel detection, and I worked on semantic segmentation (both with image processing and deep learning).
In both cases for me, and similarly for the people I work with, learning about the medical side was not "easy". You need to go through a lot of paper (as well as other support). Which is why a PhD can be important.
Additionally, in the example I know about in industry, a lot of researcher offer ask for a PhD (not all, and the requirement may not be mandatory, but still).
While the answer may not exactly what you are looking for, i.e. "cure for cancer" (which is an extremely vast domain anyway), with a SWE background, you can very well make progress in the research against cancer.
The example I can give are as a machine learning researcher for detection of cancer (such as plain detection, classification, segmentation of tumor margin for operation, etc). You can also work as a software developer to create the software that will operates on the different imaging modality. Or create tools that will be used by researchers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: If you want to work in research on cancer or in another biological field you will need a PhD, and prior to that a masters, options for the masters could be bioinformation, biotechnology, bioengineering, biophysics which would be natural ways to move from a more technical focus to gain skills in biology.
Given your lack of background in biology, you should probably do some background study for these masters. You could also look around in the biology department at your university and see if there is a biology colloquium that you could attend and perhaps speak to some of the researchers there who might be able to direct you better. They can probably also give you some insights into the field which might help you decide on what you really want to do and how to get there.
Once you have the masters, then you can apply for a PhD on a topic of interest to you, if you can find a supervisor who is willing to supervise you for it. If you apply in the US then the masters is merged with a PhD and you can go into a PhD program directly from your bachelors. However I would recommend you do a master's program in order to develop your background in biology even if you choose to do a US PhD (and are therefore in effect doing 2 masters).
Something the other questions haven't mentioned is that there is a developing focus on complex systems in biology research. Mathematically this is probably similar to the complex systems and ecosystems that you're familiar with in software and are currently studying. in this language you can probably think of cancer as a rouge process that is requesting resources (RAM, comp cycles) while avoiding the kill commands. Similarly you could probably think of parts of the immune system as algorithms that rely on pseudo random number generators. You may be able to leverage your familiarity with complex systems from computing if you learn the associated biology (or biophysics) to give a different view on these kinds of problems. This might not just be cancer research but other biological process or tools (I'm imagining CRISPR here).
PS: for context I'm a (quantum information) physicist and not a biologist, so it is natural I'd think about biology from a computational perspective.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: * Find a full-time position after my bachelor's in biotech
This.
I've worked in biotech / bioinfomatics for 15+ years, and one of the biggest problems is poorly written and maintained software and datasets, and a general lack of understanding of what computers can and can't do. For me it is paid well and with good conditions & security (as most software engineering careers do, and doubly so once you have some bio experience). It is very much a team effort though, and there are plenty of biologists and scientists that can do the bio side, so good communication skills will help.
I suspect you could find a very fulfilling position even if it isn't directly science/research related. Something as "boring" as an appointment system or medication reminders can make a huge difference to quality of life for patients!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: You might consider high performance computing, which is a field that always needs people and will likely bring you frequently into contact with bioscientists needing help with scaling up their research.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: @fordcars Does it have to be scientific research, or will engineering do? Realistically nobody is going to "cure cancer" unless they get a product to market, and that involves engineering spanning a number of disciplines: microfluidics, mechanical, electronics, and software.
I retired a while ago from a career in software engineering, and the last 12 years were spent working on medical devices, including two cancer projects: we developed code to drive robots that were amplifying RNA for a autologous tumour cell vaccines; and we developed the software for a test for HPV, the precursor to cervical cancer (instead of curing cancer, why not prevent it instead?).
If that is a path you want to go down, you might benefit from learning about developing software for medical devices. [IEC62304](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_62304) would be a good start.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: Many answers recommend getting a master's in bio-informatics, but with your background in SE, you could also consider a different degree: Artificial Intelligence. That's what I did. I found a program that specializes in simulation/computational modeling/neuroscience, did my master's thesis at an academic hospital, and now I'm doing a Ph.D. on using AI to detect dementia. I'm sure you could apply many of the same skills to cancer research.
There are many advantages (and probably some disadvantages) to doing it this way. For one, the switch from SE to AI will probably be smoother than when you try to catch up on 3 years of biomedical knowledge. You can always acquire domain knowledge as it comes along. It will also be much easier to switch careers in the future if you have an AI degree - you could move into any industry you like.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: You could consider the emulation of biological structures in a virtual environment. It may be easier to join in on an existing project, rather than having to do another degree. Bonus points if you make it a [Citizen science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science) project, when people around the world can effectively contribute to fighting cancers and other diseases, including everyday citizens who do not have any medical or biological expertise. [Distributed computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing) projects are a fantastic way to make use of people's computers, smart phones and tablets to donate their computing power to solve real-world problems.
[There have been lots of distributed computing projects.](http://www.distributedcomputing.info/ap-lsciences.html#cac)
Here are just a few select distributed computing projects running currently:
**[Folding@home](https://foldingathome.org/)**, **[Rosetta@home](https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/)** - Uses the computational power of people's computer systems to 'fold' protein structures in 3-dimensional space. Protein structures are 'folded' (compacted) in an attempt to reach their optimal state, a stable shape that allows them to function correctly and survive in their immediate environment. Solving naturally occurring protein structures helps scientists understand the function of those proteins more accurately. Novel protein structures can also be created to aid real-world problems, such as treating diseases (vaccines), or creating new materials.
**[Mapping Cancer Markers](https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/mcm1/overview.s)** - Project that attempts to find markers that relate to different kinds of cancer from the tissue samples of cancerous patients. The markers are compared to identify patterns of markers, to detect signs of cancer growth earlier and customise treatments for specific patients based on their genetic profile. This is a child project of the **[World Community Grid](https://worldcommunitygrid.org/)** program, which has featured over 30 different distributed computing projects.
---
You could also consider the [gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification) of biological structures, which could make it more appealing for people to install and try out. Existing projects incorporate the 2D or 3D modelling and sequences of biological structures with the goal of allowing everyday citizens without much knowledge in the field of medicine, to contribute towards research in curing various diseases, including cancer. The structures may represent the inner-workings of diseases, or the medicines to fight them with, with the intention of understanding more about them in a virtual environment on a computer system.
Users of a computer program that employs this concept would be expected to interact with a spatial or logical representation of a biological structure on screen, as a kind of puzzle to be solved. The structure may be manipulated in real-time using a keyboard or mouse, and may have a suite of virtual tools that can be used to manipulate the structure in various ways, for various purposes. The gamification aspect helps to maintain their interest, while they work towards achieving a publicly recognised goal or score.
Here are some examples of existing game projects that you may want to check out:
**[Cancer Crusade](https://cancercrusadegame.com/)** - A 2D mobile game featuring treatment management for cancerous cells of individual patients. Use varying amounts and frequencies of chemotherapy, HAPs (Hypoxia Activated Prodrugs), and pro and anti-angio drugs, to slow down and control the growth of cancers over a period of time.
**[Genigma](https://genigmagame.app/en/)** - A 2D mobile game that aims to fight cancer by studying human genomes. Originally focused on fighting breast cancer, it has since expanded to include the analysis of other cancers. Please note that the game is currently closed for data analysis.
**[Foldit](https://fold.it/)** - A 3D computer game featuring protein structure folding. Similar to Folding@home, it differs in that it allows people the ability to interact with virtual proteins structures themselves using various virtual tools in a user-friendly GUI. People are able to manipulate protein structures in real-time, and can even generate 'recipes' (think programmable sequences of tools) in the [Lua](https://www.lua.org/) language, which can run by themselves at the user's command.
**[Eterna](https://eternagame.org/)** - A 2D game featuring RNA folding. Similar in concept to (and inspired by) Foldit, it focuses on folding RNA strands by changing sequences of base molecules such that specific shapes are formed for medical purposes. Now available on mobile devices.
If you want to go down the path of making your own citizen science game, or perhaps even a citizen science project that doesn't require interaction (like Folding@home), consider using [**Unity**](https://unity.com/). It is a game development environment capable of making games (and other programs) that operate on multiple platforms and operating systems, and takes a lot of the ground work out of coding. It uses the C# language natively, and other languages based on the .NET framework may also be used as alternatives.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/10
| 936
| 4,111
|
<issue_start>username_0: When I was reading prior works for my master's thesis, I found a conference paper whose proposed architecture to solve the problem really caught my eye. So I decided to base my work around that architecture.
Of course over time I ended up changing a lot of details and even added a new block to the suggested block diagram in that paper, and completely changed the implementation of one of the blocks. Now my advisor has asked me to turn my master's thesis into a publishable paper.
Here's why I'm afraid, if you zoom out enough my architecture is 90% similar to what was suggested in that paper, and I would have to cite the original paper in order to not be a plagiarizer, but I think seeing a ton of repetitive [5]s will make the readers and the review team think that I basically have copied the paper. Since the difference is in the details, the shorter my paper would be, the more similar to the original work it would look like.
How can I deal with this situation? I want to publish my results without making it look like a copy of the work that heavily influenced me.<issue_comment>username_1: You avoid plagiarism with citation, indicating clearly what you used and how. Adapting work isn't an issue about plagiarism (assuming you cite properly), but it can be a copyright issue. But even there, using and adapting the work of others isn't a copyright issue. Republishing their work is.
But copyright is a serious issue. One of the rights of copyright holders (most jurisdictions) is the right to make (and control) *derivative works*. You need to explore that issue. To avoid the problem, contact the copyright holder with and ask for permission, describing what you have done.
If your work is a clear extension of theirs it is (probably) less of an issue. And a copyright holder has to care enough about it to want to file a lawsuit. They will care if your work lessens the value of the earlier work. I don't think that is likely, though, but IANAL.
At least, say how you adapted the work with enough detail to make it clear what your contribution is and what theirs is.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It's normal that some work is strongly based on some other work, so just attribute honestly to the other paper what was done there. As long as you make clear what your own contribution is (assuming that there is some that is worthwhile) I don't see any problem. It may not be seen as original enough at a very high journal level, but if you don't aim too high, it should not be a problem.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: You avoid plagiarism by citation. This is a straightforward answer with no real wiggle room. I would not be too concerned with copyright, most academic papers are published under reasonably flexible licenses in terms of non-commercial use.
I am a little confused about why you feel you need to cite this paper so frequently - didn't you write an entire original thesis? I'm worried you are expecting to just reproduce this paper with some tweaks. This really isn't ideal and is likely not publishable regardless of citation (unless you *intend* to frame your work as a direct reproduction). That being said, citing an important paper 2 or 3 times is not a problem.
I think you avoid excessive similarity by *writing your own* paper. Your introduction/background, results, discussion, and conclusion should all be unique, even if your results support the original work. All you are really using is their architecture - it's totally normal to build off of others' work in this way. In fact if you write and frame the paper correctly, it would likely be sufficient to mention in the methods something to the tune of "the architecture was based on paper X with the following modifications...". I don't see what else would need to be cited, unless you copy *everything* from the paper in which case, your paper needs to be rewritten. This might be a concern if you followed their validation exactly and it was somehow non-standard i.e., unique to the source paper or if you found nothing new or interesting.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/10
| 1,871
| 6,977
|
<issue_start>username_0: I understand that Google Scholar searches only journals, academic publishers, etc. Does that mean that Google will always include the results of Google Scholar?
If Google searches the entire web, which also include the results of Google Scholar, then why not just use Google and then manually sift through the results to find the most appropriates for a use case, in case that using Google Scholar misses something that Google doesn't?<issue_comment>username_1: As in @JonCuster's comment, a simple "Google search" will include tons of garbage.
On the other hand, "Google Scholar" will only include things that fit into a certain commercial concept. So you'd miss a lot of things... depending on your field, of course.
"The problem" is that the most assertive search gadgets are significantly commercialized, so have at best a conflict of interest, but, at worst, an agenda to ignore/omit things/people that aren't sending them money.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes and no. Searching for journal articles through Google sounds reasonable, but it might not shake out the way you'd expect. The Google algorithm is opaque and has gotten worse over the years. Just look at the first page of any search, half of it is sponsored sites right off the bat. On top of that, Google doesn't actually display every single search result (Google Scholar notably only returns the first ~1000 hits, Google has some similar arbitrary limitation). So it's not like you could manually click through every single one of the
>
> About 5,340,000,000 results (0.65 seconds)
>
>
>
anyway. Google will also not necessarily return the same results every time the same search term is entered. The list of issues goes on and on.
That is all to say, out of the several hundred or thousand results you capture on Google (and can actually access) a small portion would be academic sources you are interested in. Thus, if you are searching that sort of literature, you need to limit your search. And this is ignoring the issue of sifting through the worthless hits if you *did* have access to the full results.
You might ask if you can use clever search terms to restrict a regular Google search to the same domains as a Google Scholar search. Unfortunately, Google just does not support complex search terms and it often does not respect its own rules anyway. So you could try, but I suspect it would be unreliable at best.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Does that mean that Google will always include the results of Google Scholar?
>
>
>
Expectedly, yes. However, what you get isn't the same experience. If there're academic results from your Google search, you'll mostly see
>
> '***Scholarly articles for "... search strings ..."***'
>
>
>
followed by the 'clickable bar'
>
> '***Search on Google Scholar***'.
>
>
>
Invariably, Google expects you to do your *academic* search in Google Scholar.
>
> If Google searches the entire web, which also include the results of Google Scholar, then why not just use Google and then manually sift through the results to find the most appropriates for a use case
>
>
>
This will depend on your search strategy and the type of review you're doing.
If your review/survey include grey literature, this is a plausible approach. Be ready to sift out lotta baggages and contend with *reproducibility*.
*Are you interested in gold or dust?*
PS: you mentioned and perhaps we should ask '*what is your use case*'
---
Since we do not know why you have to use Google, perhaps we might want to recommend (re) visiting your review strategy and take it from there.
[<NAME>., & <NAME>. (2015). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1954824)
[<NAME>. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37.](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Guide-to-Conducting-a-Standalone-Systematic-Okoli/b091880c752b1bb71f44cccdfcc2986a26336f08)
[<NAME>. (2015). Beyond being systematic in literature reviews in IS. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 185-187.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jit.2015.12)
[<NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the literature. Journal of informetrics, 11(3), 823-834.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157717300676)
You might even need to do studies that '*scrap*' data from Google or Google Scholar. It depends on your research aim. See for instance
[<NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2017). Cyberbullying in higher education: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 268-274.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216308615)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: *If Google searches the entire web, which also include the results of Google Scholar, then why not just use Google and then manually sift through the results to find the most appropriates for a use case, in case that using Google Scholar misses something that Google doesn't?*
I don't think "miss" is would be the right word, but I've noticed a lag.
For an *n=1*, I've noticed that Google Scholar takes a few days (up to a week) to index my new articles whereas the articles appear within a day or so on Google and often quicker on ResearchGate and ORCDID.
I suspect some journals directly feed updates to ResearchGate and ORCDID.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Manually sifting through results is work. If you already know that you want articles from academic journals, then there is no reason to create additional work for yourself discarding search hits that aren't journals.
On top of that, Google Scholar has search options that take advantage of the structured information in the articles. You can search for particular authors, limit the search to words in the article title, filter to certain publication years (*not* necessarily the same as the date on the web page, especially for older articles), and so on. You can also search for articles that cite a particular article, which is difficult, if not impossible, to do with regular Google.
In other words, Google Scholar is a specialized tool tailored to the needs of academic researchers. If you happen to be in that target audience, then Google Scholar is going to make it a lot easier and more convenient to find the kinds of results you are looking for.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Among other things, Google scholar has search tools that allow you to refine searches by fields available in bibliographic data bases. This is better than what regular google offers. Let's say I was looking for an article published between 2000-2005. Try to do that in google.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/11
| 1,996
| 7,460
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an applied math and data science student currently doing undergrad research in statistics. I don't want to dox myself, but it falls under optimization research. It's a good mix between math and data science, but I want to understand my chances when applying to graduate school in a couple of years. I'm talking in reference to competitive math programs, such as HYPSM and CMU (I have specific schools in mind).
This isn't general grad school app advice, although I'd love to hear it out as well! I've also seen that similar questions have been asked elsewhere on here, but I'm not sure of the mathematics admissions climate in particular. Specifically, I'm wondering how important it is to do research directly within math, even if your research interests are an "indirect" branch of math.
Edits: Any added info based on feedback from y'all, I'll add here.
Geographically, I'm from the US. I go to a southern R1.<issue_comment>username_1: As in @JonCuster's comment, a simple "Google search" will include tons of garbage.
On the other hand, "Google Scholar" will only include things that fit into a certain commercial concept. So you'd miss a lot of things... depending on your field, of course.
"The problem" is that the most assertive search gadgets are significantly commercialized, so have at best a conflict of interest, but, at worst, an agenda to ignore/omit things/people that aren't sending them money.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes and no. Searching for journal articles through Google sounds reasonable, but it might not shake out the way you'd expect. The Google algorithm is opaque and has gotten worse over the years. Just look at the first page of any search, half of it is sponsored sites right off the bat. On top of that, Google doesn't actually display every single search result (Google Scholar notably only returns the first ~1000 hits, Google has some similar arbitrary limitation). So it's not like you could manually click through every single one of the
>
> About 5,340,000,000 results (0.65 seconds)
>
>
>
anyway. Google will also not necessarily return the same results every time the same search term is entered. The list of issues goes on and on.
That is all to say, out of the several hundred or thousand results you capture on Google (and can actually access) a small portion would be academic sources you are interested in. Thus, if you are searching that sort of literature, you need to limit your search. And this is ignoring the issue of sifting through the worthless hits if you *did* have access to the full results.
You might ask if you can use clever search terms to restrict a regular Google search to the same domains as a Google Scholar search. Unfortunately, Google just does not support complex search terms and it often does not respect its own rules anyway. So you could try, but I suspect it would be unreliable at best.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Does that mean that Google will always include the results of Google Scholar?
>
>
>
Expectedly, yes. However, what you get isn't the same experience. If there're academic results from your Google search, you'll mostly see
>
> '***Scholarly articles for "... search strings ..."***'
>
>
>
followed by the 'clickable bar'
>
> '***Search on Google Scholar***'.
>
>
>
Invariably, Google expects you to do your *academic* search in Google Scholar.
>
> If Google searches the entire web, which also include the results of Google Scholar, then why not just use Google and then manually sift through the results to find the most appropriates for a use case
>
>
>
This will depend on your search strategy and the type of review you're doing.
If your review/survey include grey literature, this is a plausible approach. Be ready to sift out lotta baggages and contend with *reproducibility*.
*Are you interested in gold or dust?*
PS: you mentioned and perhaps we should ask '*what is your use case*'
---
Since we do not know why you have to use Google, perhaps we might want to recommend (re) visiting your review strategy and take it from there.
[<NAME>., & <NAME>. (2015). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1954824)
[<NAME>. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37.](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Guide-to-Conducting-a-Standalone-Systematic-Okoli/b091880c752b1bb71f44cccdfcc2986a26336f08)
[<NAME>. (2015). Beyond being systematic in literature reviews in IS. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 185-187.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jit.2015.12)
[<NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the literature. Journal of informetrics, 11(3), 823-834.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157717300676)
You might even need to do studies that '*scrap*' data from Google or Google Scholar. It depends on your research aim. See for instance
[<NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2017). Cyberbullying in higher education: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 268-274.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216308615)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: *If Google searches the entire web, which also include the results of Google Scholar, then why not just use Google and then manually sift through the results to find the most appropriates for a use case, in case that using Google Scholar misses something that Google doesn't?*
I don't think "miss" is would be the right word, but I've noticed a lag.
For an *n=1*, I've noticed that Google Scholar takes a few days (up to a week) to index my new articles whereas the articles appear within a day or so on Google and often quicker on ResearchGate and ORCDID.
I suspect some journals directly feed updates to ResearchGate and ORCDID.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Manually sifting through results is work. If you already know that you want articles from academic journals, then there is no reason to create additional work for yourself discarding search hits that aren't journals.
On top of that, Google Scholar has search options that take advantage of the structured information in the articles. You can search for particular authors, limit the search to words in the article title, filter to certain publication years (*not* necessarily the same as the date on the web page, especially for older articles), and so on. You can also search for articles that cite a particular article, which is difficult, if not impossible, to do with regular Google.
In other words, Google Scholar is a specialized tool tailored to the needs of academic researchers. If you happen to be in that target audience, then Google Scholar is going to make it a lot easier and more convenient to find the kinds of results you are looking for.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Among other things, Google scholar has search tools that allow you to refine searches by fields available in bibliographic data bases. This is better than what regular google offers. Let's say I was looking for an article published between 2000-2005. Try to do that in google.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/11
| 722
| 3,267
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had the opportunity to interview with a professor and two of his PhD students for potential supervision in the mm-wave circuits group. Unfortunately, during the initial interview, which focused on the bioelectronics group, I struggled with some basic electronics questions that I had not revised thoroughly. As the interview progressed and delved deeper into the topic, I found it challenging to provide satisfactory answers, leading to a less-than-optimal outcome.
The second interview, which was more aligned with my interest in microwave circuits, took place the following day. Despite my efforts to study microwave concepts in preparation, my undergraduate-level knowledge in this area proved limited. While I managed to satisfy the interviewer with my understanding of microwave circuits, the conversation eventually shifted to circuits and communication aspects, where I once again struggled to perform well. As a result, I did not hear further from the professor or the research group.
I want to emphasize that I am not seeking justification for my performance during those interviews. I understand the importance of having a strong grasp of electronics and microwave circuits when pursuing this field. I simply wanted to share my experience.
Now, as I plan to reapply to the same research group this year, I have been working on three patents, which I hope to disclose during the interview period. Additionally, I am committed to thoroughly revising my knowledge of electronics and circuits concepts.
Here comes my question: Would it be a good idea to email the professor now, before the start of the application/intake period, to express my continued interest in the research group? Or should I wait until the application period begins? Or perhaps, is it not advisable to email the professor at all?<issue_comment>username_1: You can certainly send the email, now or later, but I'm not sure why you expect a different outcome. The patents won't (I'd guess) compensate for not doing well answering relevant questions. If you can find reasons to think it would have a different outcome this time, then you can ask about it. Otherwise, you might better spend your efforts elsewhere.
But if you send an early email, include something about why you think things are different now. What have you done about the specific knowledge needed by this group?
Simply applying again during the normal process would might not even get you an interview if there is memory in the system about the previous outcome.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Interviewing with the same investigator would suggest to that investigator that you *really* want to be in that lab, perhaps connoting very strong motivation that might make the investigator take a second look.
That said, my though process would be "this is a two-way street", and I'd want some hard evidence that you've spend real effort making yourself a better candidate for that lab, minimally selecting coursework that would shore up the weaknesses that were noted during your first interviews. This doesn't mean that your chances are zero if you haven't done any work in that direction -- but that's how I would approach the situation as an investigator.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/11
| 1,792
| 7,750
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a senior postdoc in a American university. My PI and myself have written a NIH grant that extends some of the work I have done. If awarded, it will have money to support me for next 3 years (starting Dec 2023).
However, I am actively also pursuing non-academic sources of income because of financial constraints. If I find a lucrative job (say 1 or 2 years into the grant), I will be inclined to take it.
Basically, at this point, I am simply interested in the grant so that it can fund me for the next 1-2 years while I look for good jobs/opportunities to transition out.
Now what happens to the grant money if I leave? Will my PI be in trouble if I leave ? Will NIH have issues that I am leaving midway?<issue_comment>username_1: All sorts of options for situations exist, and are usually some sort of negotiation between the funding organizations and representatives of the universities involved (at least when we're talking about a faculty member moving-- postdocs have some other issues, which I'll get to eventually).
First, faculty members switch universities all the time, and try (usually successfully) to take their grants with them. The research contracts are almost always to the University, not to the investigators, who are just employees of the contract holders.
You might ask "why would a university awarded a research contract be willing to let it move to another university?" Well, there are a few reasons. The original holder, given that the key employee will no longer be there, may no longer be able to fulfill the contract without them. Also, sometimes faculty move out of a university, sometimes they move *in*. The receiving university will find that if they oppose letting grant money travel with exiting employees, that other universities will oppose grants moving to that receiving university. It may also tick off portfolio managers at the funding institutions.
Let's kick the complexity up a notch. Let's say Prof A, the primary grant holder, has a collaboration with Prof B at the same university on this hypothetical grant. What happens if Prof B moves? Well, lots of things can happen. If Prof B is done with their share of the research, simply removing prof B from subsequent years of the grant is certainly an option. If prof B is important, and the research needs to continue, the grant can often be modified such that the original uni cuts an annual check to the new uni to cover research expenditures under the grant. If Prof B's contributions are huge, the grant may need to be modified to convert some of the ongoing funds to more of a consortium arrangement. You find out what the funding institution wants to do by talking to them. Universities usually have staff capable of initiating these conversations with the funders.
the issues are similar if Prof A moves.
Now, what about postdoc funding. The devil here is all in the details, and depends heavily on the details of the grant. If the postdoc is simply an employee on a PI's grant, the PI may simply choose to hire a new postdoc, and cut out the original postdoc. This seems most like your case to me, but I can certainly be wrong. Would you be "key personnel" on the grant, or would you be a co-Investigator? If you're the former, chances are lower that the money would follow you.
If the grant is a development grant for the postdoc, the funding institution may well demand that the money follow the postdoc. There are probably dozens of other situations and in-betweens here, but without knowing more details, real answers are difficult.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Research administrator here. The short and sweet answer is that this happens all the time and is expected, but there are multiple paths that can be taken depending on how essential you are to the research and how much involvement you want in the future on the project. Please note that "essential" is meant in terms of the sponsored programs concept "**change in scope**". Despite how many researchers may feel, any trainee-type position (students, postdocs) is generally included on grants as completely interchangeable, unnamed people. This means you leaving does not change the scope of the project. I am going to cover a few other scenarios for the sake of a complete answer, and then give you a bit of advice on how you make your final exit.
If you were written into the grant as senior/key personnel, and a commitment was made for you, the usual way to handle this departure would be via a "subaward at no additional cost", with an award set up at your new institution. It would cost your PI money to issue this subaward to your new institution -- the "no additional cost" means no additional cost to the sponsor. The idea here, is that you would note that you changed institutions and the costs assigned to you now need to move to a new location and this is *not a change in scope*, just an administrative change. You would reduce the amount of money available to your PI by the amount you are transferring to the new institution, plus any indirect costs associated with the subcontract as required by your institution's indirect cost rate agreement.
The main sticking point here is that you would need to argue that *you specifically are important enough to go through the hassle of the subaward.* I will say in managing grants for 15 years, I have worked with more than 70 PIs, and I have never seen someone do this for a postdoc. We replace the postdoc, and we submit a new proposal with the postdoc in their new position. This allows the postdoc to be named as a proper Co-I/Co-PI and write the proposal as an equal. It also skips a huge amount of paperwork.
In the case where you are written in as senior/key personnel and want out of the project, your PI would have to notify the sponsor that there is disengagement of a PI, and then the institution has to decide if they want to find a replacement PI or if they have to change the scope of the project. This is usually done very rarely, but it happens. I had a case where an Assistant Prof took a job in industry after a few years (in Robotics). He ended up staying as Co-PI on our grants as they finished out, but we had to adjust a lot of budgets/effort commitment with the sponsor. He became an "unfunded collaborator" and the funds were rebudgeted. On projects he was on by himself, they were all terminated early.
One note of etiquette for you -- your PI's research administrator is probably looking at costs on a regular basis, running projections based on existing and expected costs, and providing advice based on these variables. If you depart early, it can impact the ability to get the next increment of funding, depending on the sponsor (e.g., NIH and DOD can be this way) and the overall level of spending. If you sense you are getting close to the end, ensure that the PI knows to hire a successor to overlap briefly with you or that the gap between you will be small. Just last month, one of my PIs had a postdoc say he won't renew in September after just one year in the position. If we had known that in January, we would have hired a replacement. Now we have to wait another year to hire someone, and this puts us in an awkward spot with our funding. Needless to say, this hurt my PI deeply, and he has told me that he will not forget this. Be thoughtful in giving notice, and you may find a very smooth transition. These transitions are stressful enough for PIs without ill-timed surprises. Even if you do not require this PI to get you through an academic career, there is no reason to burn bridges. They expect you to leave, be thoughtful about the exit. They may remember and help you when you need it in the future.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/11
| 781
| 3,111
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a good research idea and practical plan how to do it. I don't want to stay in my PhD lab and have found a group where I can do this but I prefer to be on my own grant/fellowship (and they also do as they are short of funds) of which they are supportive and would write with me. My question is how realistic is it to get a post- PhD grant and if successful do grants usually take a long time to be finalised? I've never written one before
this is life sciences field .
it's a new group in a great environment so I feel it would be a good career move and give me autonomy with my research.
I prefer it to doing an advertised post-doc but I want to know how feasible and if this is actually a good idea
\*\*\*\*In the UK.
thanks<issue_comment>username_1: Presuming that you are in a US university and are administratively allowed to submit (which you will have to find out), I will give you some rough estimates:
1. Internal grant (within university)will take 3-4 months to be reviewed and approved. If you are in the right cycle you can probably get the money flowing as soon as 4 months. The probability of success is typically higher (30-50%) and some preference is given to new PI
2. Regional Grants: 3-4 months proposal submission to decision. If you are in the right cycle,these might be quick as well but the chances of success do drop to 25-30%. In some cases they give preference to young and new PI.
3. Federal grants- usually these are toughest to crack. 10-20% success rate. Very few of them give preference to new PI. The proposal submission to money flowing can easily take 6-9 months.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Hi there are a number of ways of doing this.
For the most independence apply for a research fellowship. There are quite a few research fellowship available in the UK from the different research councils or from universities (if the university you want to be based at has that). The only thing is that you often need to be awarded your PhD degree already and have a solid track record of publications.
If you don't have that it would be best to talk to the PI you want to work with and discuss regular research grants. You will help the them write the grant, they will be the PI on the grant and you will be the named investigator. This will be your proven contribution as most research grants you can't apply for without being a permanently employed academic. This option tends to take a bit of time so it's good to plan in advance.
Depending on the university, the university might also award smaller, short term grants that will be quicker and easier to get (they might e.g. have a commercial focus). Depending on the requirements you will probably have to be a named investigator on this too.
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Fairly unrealistic I'm afraid, unless you published very well in your PhD (i.e. 3+ papers including 1 C/N/S). I've just got my first fellowship off the back of 7 years of post-doc with 10 publications, and was turned down for another as not competitive enough just 1 year ago.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/07/11
| 316
| 1,447
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the etiquette on listing your academic interests on a personal or academic webpage?
For example, if I list "optimization" as an interest on my webpage, but don't yet have any publications in mathematical optimization, and am not an expert in the field (but perhaps do have personal projects and coursework) will this be looked down upon? I don't want to accidentally give the impression that I am an expert by listing it as an interest.
I am a graduate student getting started in a new field.<issue_comment>username_1: I doubt anyone would look down on you for making a statement of interest. I assume you aren't intending to say anything that suggests expertise. Most mathematicians have interest in one (or a few) special areas. It is fine to say that. Your CV will make it clear where your expertise lies.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Having publications in a particular field **is not necessary** to be able to write that area on your interests. This is especially applicable when you are just starting to work in a specific field, which is exactly your situation. Your interest implies that you are dedicating time and effort to exploring that topic and aspire to make contributions to the field.
It's worth noting that while many individuals have publications within their area of expertise, this is often because they have worked for long time on that area and they are not beginners.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/12
| 403
| 1,718
|
<issue_start>username_0: My question is the following. Should references in math papers be arranged according to author’s last-names or first-names?<issue_comment>username_1: Usually according to last names. Alternatively you can arrange them in the order of citation. Both work, and if the aim is only arXiv then it's pretty free.
Edit: Alright, to be frank I'm from Computer Science so I don't really know the norms in math though I supposed the two should be similar. As <NAME> suggested, arranging in the order of citation is extant but uncommon, so then I think last name would work out the best.
On the other hand, again, arXiv has virtually no restrictions whatsoever, so ultimately its your choice if arXiv is all you want.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If "should be" means to be received as useful or standard by mathematicians looking at your document, then references should be ordered by last names, not first names.
Also, in the contemporary style of ordering authors alphabetically, you'd order citations by the last name of first author.
And, indeed, I strongly endorse this, as, otherwise, it's stupidly difficult to understand the bibliography directly, especially if it's large.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: As the other answers said, by last names.
Generally speaking, a good way to answer questions like this is to browse through other math papers on the arXiv. Essentially all of them will be formatted very similarly, and will illustrate common conventions for how to format a paper and how the bibliography should look.
Your content should be unique of course! -- but on stylistic questions I recommend simply imitating what others do.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/12
| 2,765
| 11,742
|
<issue_start>username_0: We have a manuscript that has been rejected from different journals twice: once after initial review, once after the editor felt we didn't address the reviewer comments appropriately.
In both cases the same reviewer pointed out what he thought to be a fundamental flaw of the study. We disagree with their assessment. We know it is the same person because they said so, even though they didn't provide their name. We have an assumption who it might be.
Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal without addressing the reviewer's comments?
Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal while listing who we think the reviewer might be as an opposed reviewer stating that we have a conflicting approach to our particular area of research and feel they might not comment fairly?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know if I'd say "unethical" because it isn't 'wrong'. Rather, unless you can prove that the assessment is false, I would simply say reconsider if you're right. They may be pointing out something legitimate. Any paper I submit, I send to a few coworkers in my field before I do, as they may have a fresher perspective than me.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal while listing who we think the reviewer might be as an opposed reviewer stating that we have a conflicting approach to our particular area of research and feel they might not comment fairly?
>
>
>
Of course it is unethical. What you are proposing is to mislead an editor in order to circumvent normal peer review and get your paper published despite appearing to have a fundamental flaw.
The proper course of action is to modify the paper to clearly explain why this apparent flaw does not actually invalidate your results. If this reviewer thought it was a problem, and an editor agreed, probably others will too, so this is worth doing even if you don't get the same reviewer again.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't actually think it is unethical, given that you are saying why, but I doubt that it will help, and will probably hurt, your case for publication by any reputable journal. They will probably want the reading of that reviewer.
While you don't have to address every reviewer comment, you should, at the minimum, consider it. Having a different opinion on a matter isn't enough. If you can't clearly refute those comments to the satisfaction of an editor you don't have a very strong case for publication.
Perhaps you have work to do.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is it ethical to re-submit a manuscript without addressing comments from a particular reviewer while asking the editor to exclude them?
>
>
>
There are two things here.
Should you resubmit without addressing comments. You shouldn't.
Even when submitting to a new Journal, I'll still prepare a ***rebuttal***, even if it's for my personal use (although I won't be submitting). This assist with giving thought to reviewers comments/view/opinion. I need to be clear within myself what I'm addressing or why I'm not revising.
As regarding if you can request exclusion of certain reviewers, yes you can. However, not in the *manner* you outlined.
Some journals welcome proposing and opposing reviewers as part of their submission process. One simply propose or opposes based on discipline topic/methodology. Politely so. There's no space for personal attack!
I have opposed certain persons when submitting certain manuscript. For instance where I know certain persons equate *critical theory* to be same as *critical realism*. This isn't about the persons but simply because of the improper view they'll bring to the review.
---
This only address an aspect of your question. There are other nuances that warrants different responses and approaches.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: ### Is it unethical to submit a paper without addressing criticism?
Maybe. I lean towards "yes", but it is complicated.
On the one hand, if one journal does not accept a paper, but the authors are confident of their results, then it is entirely reasonable to resubmit the paper elsewhere. This really isn't a problem, in and of itself.
On the other hand, if an author submits a paper to a journal, and the reviewers point out perceived errors or flaws, the burden is on the author of the paper to either correct the errors (if they are "legitimate" problems), or rebut the reviewer and explain why the perceived errors are not a problem. Until the problems are either corrected or rebutted, the assumption *should* be that the paper is flawed.
If the author resubmits the paper somewhere else without fixing the problems, they are engaging in a kind of deception—they are presenting a flawed paper as though it had no flaws.
Additionally, this reeks of something like p-hacking. Whenever you submit a paper, there is some chance that it will be accepted, even if it is flawed. The more times you resubmit the paper, the more likely it is that some journal, somewhere, will eventually accept it. It is like rerunning the same flawed experiment over and over again, and only keeping the result which, at random, rises above your desired significance level.
Don't do it.
### Is it productive to submit a paper without addressing criticism?
No. Absolutely not.
Even if you are being selfish, this is a waste of your time (not to mention the time of the reviewers and editors who have to deal with your paper). Academic circles tend to be relatively small and, depending on how broad your field is, it is likely that you will encounter the same reviewer over and over again. This reviewer will point out the same perceived flaws over and over again. This doesn't help you to get your paper in print.
If your goal is publication, address the review. Explain why their criticisms are incorrect, or edit the paper to fix the errors.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: The ethics of your plan depends on the following unexplained statement:
>
> "In both cases the same reviewer pointed out what he thought to be a
> fundamental flaw of the study. **We disagree with their assessment**." (my emphasis).
>
>
>
It is unclear on which basis you "disagree". In any respectable scientific or intellectual debate "disagreeing" does not suffice as a justification. You need to *explain* an in this case *thoroughly and precisely*, why you disagree with the criticism.
If your disagreement is based on a relatively strong basis, and you explain it effectively, I think your plan is ethical. Otherwise, it seems like very bad scholarship (more than an ethical question).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: There is no ethics involved here: just the regular review process. It is appropriate to exclude a referee if you can fully justify this exclusion with the editor.
Given this referee was selected by two other different editors means this referee is likely very qualified to provide an expert opinion, so you will need a strong argument to justify your case, which amounts to having a rebuttal to the referee ready at hand. Just stating “Please exclude X because we have a difference of opinion” will not get you anywhere with any reasonable editor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: If you believe that the reviewer is biased, or has conflicting interests, or that their viewpoint is not universal - it is legitimate to demand the editor to assigned another reviewer or to appeal the decisions. Most of the scientific journals have such appeal procedures put in place and the final rejection letter would be *signed* by a divisional editor or an assigned reviewer, usually a top-of-the-field scientist. So you need first check the specific policies of the journal in question, and try to follow them through to the end.
So, what seems to me *unethical/questionable* is not that you go to another journal, without taking all the luggage associated with the article, but that you do so before having exhausted all the options - it seems like an admission that there is indeed a problem with your research.
In practical terms, people certainly do gamble by submitting to as many journals as possible, until the paper is published. Refusing to do so would demonstrate your high moral standards, but might put you at a disadvantage in comparison to other scientists in your field.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: **Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal without addressing the reviewer's comments?**
No. There is no ethical obligation to address a referee's comments if you think doing so would not improve the paper.
**Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal while listing who we think the reviewer might be as an opposed reviewer stating that we have a conflicting approach to our particular area of research and feel they might not comment fairly?**
That depends on whether you are proposing to lie by omission here or not.
It seems like the only basis for believing that Researcher X might not comment fairly is precisely because you think that (1) Referee #2 did not comment fairly and (2) Researcher X is Referee #2. If you are honest with the editor about this reasoning, then surely there is nothing unethical about this. Of course, I imagine the editor might not find this reasoning particularly convincing, but that's a different matter.
If, on the other hand, you intend to create the impression in the editor that your concern that Researcher X would not treat your manuscript fairly is based on something other than your belief that Researcher X = Referee #2, then this is in effect an attempt to deceive the editor (certainly it does not count as honest communication) and as such is indeed unethical.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I don't think it would be unethical to submit to another journal without addressing the criticism or to ask the journal to exclude a specific referee. Other answers seem to imply that it is your duty to do something about the flaw in your paper. I am not sure this is an imperative.
Let me explain. You are trying to publish a paper. I don't understand why your paper must be perfect. If it moves the state of the art forward, it is publishable. If some referee disagrees, it's just an opinion of that referee, and you don't owe anything to that referee.
Let me give a couple of historic examples. We all know Pauli as a greatest physicist. When Kronig suggested that Pauli's "two-valuedness not describable classically" is related to rotation of the electron, Pauli's criticism was devastating, and his arguments were very reasonable. As a result, Kronig did not publish the idea, although it is now generally accepted (I believe:-)).
Decades later, Pauli's criticism of Yang and Mills' work was harsh, and his arguments were very reasonable. Later work by others fixed the flaw of Yang-Mills' work and won Nobel prizes. Were Yang and Mills unethical to publish flawed work?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: There is an unethical aspect to resubmitting the way you suggest. You are hiding important information from the editor of the journal to which you will submit, information that may (or may not) give an indication of a fundamental flaw in your article/research. What I propose is a simple thing: address the point raised by that reviewer, and reason in the article why you did x, decided y, or ignored z (etc., whatever is relevant in the case of the alleged defect, which was pointed on earlier). This will add another dimension to the article that you did not address before, and will also be more ethical.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/12
| 761
| 3,135
|
<issue_start>username_0: Impact factor for individual journals can be found on their website. There are several impact factors in use, like the 2-5 years impact factor, real-time impact factor (i.e., monthly update), Scimago impact factor.
I have found [Academic Accelator](https://academic-accelerator.com/Journal-Profile/Duke-Mathematical-Journal) which provides the 2-5 years impact factor and the real-time impact factor (i.e., monthly update). Then there is [Scimago journal ranking](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100389312&tip=sid) which also contains the citation impact factor and classification of journals into four categories Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4. Then there is another place called [Resurchify](https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/21100389312) which also reports journal impact factors.
Which website is an authentic source that contains impact factor of all scientific journals ?<issue_comment>username_1: Typically, the term "impact factor" refers specifically to the trademarked journal index owned by Clarivate. It is released annually as part of the publication Journal Citation Reports, which is available at [jcr.clarivate.com](https://jcr.clarivate.com) and requires a subscription to access.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The only journals that have *impact factors* are those indexed by Clarivate's Web of Science, as they calculate and release the annual Journal Citation Report (as J.P. mentioned already) containing that metric. Thus, only the official impact factors contained in that report are "authentic". But as you have found, there are a handful of other citation metrics including Scimago Journal Ranking, CiteScore, Source-normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), and others. Each of these metrics is slightly different and not directly comparable to each other or to impact factor. You can certainly use them and some may actually be better than IF, but they are not the same thing. Importantly, they are not inauthentic or incorrect, just different.
It's worth noting that sometimes sketchy journals will advertise these metrics *in place* of a an IF, watch out for that. Having (or not having) an impact factor doesn't mean a journal is good or bad, but lying about it (or trying to pass off another metric as an IF) is suspicious. On top of that, sometimes aggregate websites are not particularly careful about reporting IF and will scrape *any* citation metric and add it in that place.
Unless you have Clarivate's JCR, you have to rely on journal-reported impact factors. And any free website aggregating these (unless they have access to the original report) are probably scrapping the IFs from the internet. So again, they are not necessarily inauthentic. They may be outdated, misreported, or in the case of predatory journals, made up though. So really all of those websites are reasonable ways to try to quickly compare impact factors (or other metrics) but be aware that you'll need to verify the info that they provide. As far as I know the only way to have the complete list of impact factors would be to purchase the JCR at the source.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/12
| 446
| 1,902
|
<issue_start>username_0: There is one of the members of my committee that is extremely old (like 80+) and smokes like a chimney. I was already wary of my supervisor pretty much forcing me to include him in my jury committee. Right now he is, supposedly, the only member that has to submit his comments after my initial submission, and every day that goes by I am more and more concerned that he might fall ill or die. What would normally happen if he dies or some debilitating illness doesn't permit him to evaluate me? Would I have to submit to another member of the jury and wait again for my evaluation?<issue_comment>username_1: Who knows? It depends on the specific rules in your institution, which may or may not cover this particular situation. If there is no rule in your institution for that case, than someone in power will make a decision when necessary. Usually, the institution tries to be reasonable when something like this happens.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your university will require a certain number of committee members. If you fall below the minimum, then a new one must be added.
It is too late for you now, but in general I suggest having an extra committee member.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The straight answer to your question, as posted, is: check the rules of your program.
However, I'll answer a related question: How should you prepare in case a committee member dies?
You should get an extra committee member, and ask them to read your thesis. Explain that the old committee member has not evaluated your thesis and that you are concerned. With this strategy, you get the ball rolling. In case your old committee member dies, the extra member is already up to speed and ready to take over without having to restart the process.
However, don't count on it! If he's 80 and smoking, chances are he will live to be 200, and bury YOU :)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/12
| 416
| 1,803
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to create a database of publicly funded research projects related to the topic of environmental assessments in trade agreements, so that I can map these and do some other analysis. Does anyone know if there is a database or online resource already out there?
My best idea so far is to scrape google scholar, but this will be super inconsistent in getting data on who funded certain projects or where they took place.
Do any more expereinced researchers have any ideas?<issue_comment>username_1: Who knows? It depends on the specific rules in your institution, which may or may not cover this particular situation. If there is no rule in your institution for that case, than someone in power will make a decision when necessary. Usually, the institution tries to be reasonable when something like this happens.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your university will require a certain number of committee members. If you fall below the minimum, then a new one must be added.
It is too late for you now, but in general I suggest having an extra committee member.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The straight answer to your question, as posted, is: check the rules of your program.
However, I'll answer a related question: How should you prepare in case a committee member dies?
You should get an extra committee member, and ask them to read your thesis. Explain that the old committee member has not evaluated your thesis and that you are concerned. With this strategy, you get the ball rolling. In case your old committee member dies, the extra member is already up to speed and ready to take over without having to restart the process.
However, don't count on it! If he's 80 and smoking, chances are he will live to be 200, and bury YOU :)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/12
| 371
| 1,541
|
<issue_start>username_0: Since I did not have decent grades in my bachelor's (2:2) and master's (pass with merit). What can I do for applying a funded PhD in the future? For example, working as a research assistant in a similar field? Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: Who knows? It depends on the specific rules in your institution, which may or may not cover this particular situation. If there is no rule in your institution for that case, than someone in power will make a decision when necessary. Usually, the institution tries to be reasonable when something like this happens.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your university will require a certain number of committee members. If you fall below the minimum, then a new one must be added.
It is too late for you now, but in general I suggest having an extra committee member.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The straight answer to your question, as posted, is: check the rules of your program.
However, I'll answer a related question: How should you prepare in case a committee member dies?
You should get an extra committee member, and ask them to read your thesis. Explain that the old committee member has not evaluated your thesis and that you are concerned. With this strategy, you get the ball rolling. In case your old committee member dies, the extra member is already up to speed and ready to take over without having to restart the process.
However, don't count on it! If he's 80 and smoking, chances are he will live to be 200, and bury YOU :)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/13
| 339
| 1,423
|
<issue_start>username_0: <https://conferenceindex.org/>
Is this a reputable website or a scam/predatory conference collection?<issue_comment>username_1: Who knows? It depends on the specific rules in your institution, which may or may not cover this particular situation. If there is no rule in your institution for that case, than someone in power will make a decision when necessary. Usually, the institution tries to be reasonable when something like this happens.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your university will require a certain number of committee members. If you fall below the minimum, then a new one must be added.
It is too late for you now, but in general I suggest having an extra committee member.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The straight answer to your question, as posted, is: check the rules of your program.
However, I'll answer a related question: How should you prepare in case a committee member dies?
You should get an extra committee member, and ask them to read your thesis. Explain that the old committee member has not evaluated your thesis and that you are concerned. With this strategy, you get the ball rolling. In case your old committee member dies, the extra member is already up to speed and ready to take over without having to restart the process.
However, don't count on it! If he's 80 and smoking, chances are he will live to be 200, and bury YOU :)
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/13
| 2,581
| 10,637
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first year PhD student in cognitive neuroscience, and I've been working/studying in this institution since my last year of master's degree.
My PhD project is the extension of my master's thesis project, which involves the use of rodents, and extra-cellular invasive recordings. Since the start of the PhD, I've been experiencing high anxiety and intrusive thoughts, for which I decided to start therapy. I recognize that my preoccupations revolve around my lab animals.
My lab usually performs long experiments, with animals performing behavioral training protocols for extended periods of time.
Of course, rodents are living beings, and not everything can be under my control.
This is something that I stress about, a lot. An animal might decide to slightly tilt the head in performing the task, and this can be very hard, sometimes impossible to correct: in this situation, one cannot record neuronal activity, for a number of reasons.
I'm in this situation, and not obtaining neuronal data means delaying my progress, which will be evaluated next year by the faculty, as it happens every year. This in turn makes me spiral so bad into anxiety and anguish. I'm afraid of the judgment of other people in the lab, especially those that are academically older than me.
I know I'm not the first student in a similar situation, and I'm aware that many feel the same as me. Plus, imposter syndrome is hitting hard, sometimes.
I'm asking for advice.
* Have you ever been in a similar situation?
* How did you manage to de-compress and cope with stress over situations that can't be 100% under your control?
* How did you overcome fear of judgment, and fear of not being good/smart/capable enough?
I must admit that I have a positive relationship with my PI, and other lab mates, and that the majority of my problems don't have a very objective, precise, external cause, but they are impacting my quality of academic life. I feel overwhelmed and tired, and feel guilty if working less than my usual (8-5 or 8-4, mon-fri).
If this question is inappropriate, I apologize in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: **You are not alone.**
Your title question *How to manage stress during a PhD, when your research project involves working with lab animals?* was addressed in a recent *Science* March 2023 article, ["Suffering in Silence: Caring for research animals can take a severe mental toll. Is anyone listening?"](https://www.science.org/content/article/suffering-silence-caring-research-animals-can-take-severe-mental-toll).
The article appears to be free so I encourage you to read it.
Some key points from the article:
* Support groups exist for people who work with animals
* You're not alone
* Tools exist to reduce stress for students and animal care givers in academia
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Not an experimentalist, so take from this what you will.
The first question that comes to mind is are you anxious because you're doing experiments on animals (which may feel unethical to you) or are you anxious because you can't control every aspect of the animal when doing the experiment?
If the first case then maybe another aspect of research may be better for you.
If it's the second case (which it sounds like because you are talking about how tilting the head destroys your data) then you should maybe re-frame how you are thinking of this. You seem to be saying, an animal does this behaviour which stops me from taking (neuronal) data. Instead of thinking the animals could destroy my experiment at any time, start a second project focused on: what method could I use to be robust to this animal behaviour. This project itself may end up being more valuable than your original project if you develop a good method to account for head movement when trying to measure neuronal data, leading to a paper describing what might later be colloquially known as Acherontia's method.
Basically what is happening is you try to do some science, find something isn't as well understood or developed as you'd like it to be, and do some science on this alternative topic. Even if you never solve your original project, solving this new problem is science, one of the may incremental steps of it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes! I've been there too. My PhD and postdoc both involved neurophysiology in awake, behaving animals. It can be very stressful to have your "progress" depend on something that's largely out of your control.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind:
* **Your supervisor has probably done similar experiments!** They should therefore have reasonable idea about how quickly and consistently anyone can collect data. If not, consider adding a neurophysiologist to your committee so they can help set expectations; this might be especially helpful if other committee members come from more fast-moving fields. One of mine did human behavior and fMRI and it was very helpful to have another committee member remind him that animal training alone could take over a year.
* **Ask for feedback on your progress.** Directly ask your PI "Am I doing okay?" Since you have a good relationship, I would expect a fair appraisal, but people do tend to forget how difficult things are and some may never be happy with any amount of work. Consequently, you may also want to **look at published work as well.** My PhD advisor insisted that he recorded 7 days a week and got publishable data almost every time. Looking at his papers revealed that was....not even close and that I was indeed working as hard, if not harder, than he had.
* **Adjust the experiment** The two ways these projects go wrong is to either a) constantly change everything or b) never change anything. Instead, deliberately consider deliberate changes that can improve your odds of success. The problem you describe in the comments sounds like it could be fixed with some engineering: carve a hole in the nose poke apparatus so the implant has more clearance, add some material elsewhere to better constrain the approach/exit angle, or beef up the implant so it's less likely to be damaged. If your institution has a friendly machinist or veterinarian, ask them for advice. Think about changing the task too. Your scientific question can probably be answered in many different ways. Could you (for example), put a lickometer in the nosepoke, so that the animal doesn't need to move? Or perhaps you could explicitly train them not to press against the implant (e.g., by adding a timeout). Discuss any ideas you have with your lab/committee. Not only will the feedback be useful, but it should demonstrate that you're thinking hard about your research.
* **Adjust your PhD.** The stress presumably comes from feeling like these experiments are make-or-break for your PhD, so giving yourself some other/backup options can really help. Could you do some human psychophysics or computational modeling related to your experiment? Analyze some existing data? Write a review? I would consider trying to do (say) four experiments a week and spend Fridays on a side project that's more "deterministic".
* **Realize how you're being evaluated.** A few people may judge you strictly on your ability to produce data and it's obviously part of being a scientist. However, most people——and especially the good ones——will also consider your effort, attitude, and intellectual approach as well. For what it's worth, I would be impressed if I saw someone at their rig, day after day, working hard and intelligently. This impression would only *slighly* be affected by their yield, especially for a grad student. If they were moving slowly, I'm more likely to think that the project is tough or that they should be getting more help.
* **Don't compare yourself to others.** Ephys is slow and difficult, as is animal behavior, and the combination is infamously worse. Most of the broader field of neuroscience knows this, so don't feel inferior to a classmate doing (e.g.,) MTurk experiments or modeling, where they can quickly bang out papers. Your reference letter-writers should also be able to explain this fact.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: >
> Have you ever been in a similar situation?
>
>
>
Oh yes. I've been doing research in neuroscience with rats for about 10 years now. In the first year of my PhD I ran 7 experiments lasting about 1 month each which basically all failed: the rats didn't seem to learn what I wanted them to learn. I was pretty stressed out by the end of that... but it lead to a re-thinking of my whole approach and scientific question, and my 8th (and last) PhD experiment was successful and is now published.
>
> How did you manage to de-compress and cope with stress over situations that can't be 100% under your control?
>
>
>
Try to fix it, give up & move on if you can't fix it. Learning to give up is a big part of being a scientist. Also... no situation in biology is ever 100% under your control and I'm afraid you just have to accept that (other researchers in your field already know it, and will judge you accordingly). Lastly: make sure you have hobbies (especially which involve physical activity) to help you stop thinking about work.
Specifically, you say:
>
> An animal might decide to slightly tilt the head in performing the task, and this can be very hard, sometimes impossible to correct: in this situation, one cannot record neuronal activity, for a number of reasons.
>
>
>
This seems like enough of a problem to need a fix. Spend some time figuring out how to improve this, ask your supervisor, if they don't know, ask other scientists that work with the same technique, try things out.
>
> How did you overcome fear of judgment, and fear of not being good/smart/capable enough?
>
>
>
I wrote my PhD... until then I was definitely unsure of my abilities as a scientist. Reading papers and obviously publishing papers helps a lot, but the feeling of not knowing enough never goes away. I don't mind being judged anymore though: that's how you improve!
>
> This in turn makes me spiral so bad into anxiety and anguish
>
>
>
This is worrying me a little bit.. is this a recurrent feeling or does it happen rarely? It is not normal to feel too anxious too often, even for a PhD student. The most prominent feeling should be enjoyment, curiosity, excitement... do you at least get some of that?
In conclusion: you cannot control everything, and your colleagues know this; but you should attempt to improve things that you have control on to maximize your chances of getting valid results. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/13
| 1,058
| 4,423
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently submitted a paper on which I worked on for quite a long time to a social sciences journal. It’s a data science paper based on quantitative analysis.
Within a couple days, I received an immediate desk rejection saying that the paper is not developed enough, nothing else.
Has anyone had this before? What can lead to this kind of rejection?<issue_comment>username_1: Take it literally. You are missing something, possibly something essential. This editor needs more before they will consider taking it further. It might just be a poor match for the journal, but it probably indicates you have more work to do.
Make sure your paper is in accord with what a journal generally publishes before you submit.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I have not been given this exact feedback, but I have received my fair share of desk rejects. I am also a new editor myself, so I have a bit of insight here.
There are usually a few reasons why an editor might reject a paper prior to review.
1. The paper is not within the scope of the journal.
2. The paper is not impactful enough for the journal.
3. The paper may be decent but is lacking in one area or another and the editor just isn't interested i.e., they have better submissions.
4. The paper is just generally below the quality generally expected at the journal.
5. The paper is so poorly written or so obviously flawed that it does not need to be sent for expert review to spot the issues
There is nothing to do about 1, other than be more diligent when picking journals to submit to. 2 is also difficult to directly address and is somewhat subjective, usually the solution is to just move on to the next journal. Option 5 is unusual for a decent academic. It takes laziness or a lack of experience/knowledge to churn out a legitimately *bad* paper. Think of the type of paper that ends up in a predatory journal.
Options 3 and 4 are probably where most desk rejections fall. These are also the two possibilities that really leave room for improvement.
Often you will receive no feedback from the editor. In your case, you have a clue. They told you the paper was "not developed enough" - that probably puts you in those middle categories (3 or 4). I would take that literally.
So what do you do? Well the best thing you can do is try to fix the "problem". A paper being undeveloped could mean a lot of things. It could be that you introduced some interesting ideas but you never expanded on them. Or it could be that you have a strong foundation but never really introduce anything new, even though there was the potential to. It could be that the paper needs editing for structure, clarity, flow, etc. It can be hard to identify these issues yourself, so you should find a fresh set of eyes (preferably more experienced and knowledgeable than yourself) to help you revise the paper.
A final thought, I would not recommend resubmitting anywhere without at least *trying* to revise the paper and "develop" it more. It could be that the editor was just not interested and made up an excuse but considering that editors generally don't need to give you a reason for rejection, you should treat their feedback as true for now.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In addition to other comments, other reasons include:
* The editor has not read the scope of the journal.
* The editor wants to reduce his/her workload. Hence, a desk reject is a convenient excuse.
Have a look at other papers in the journal, does it 'look' like your paper belongs in that journal?
EDIT: Do not make the assumptions that editors are 'saints'. Are priests saints? we know the answer to that!
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Welcome to Academia and to the world of rejection: a fabric we *all* wear with *pride*.
>
> submitted a paper ... to a social sciences journal. It’s a data science paper based on quantitative analysis.
>
> What can lead to this kind of rejection?
>
>
>
Some considerations.
Being a social science journal and your manuscript being quantitative
* have you checked the scope of the journal
* check other papers published in the journal
* addressed what is '*social*' in your manuscript
* is your manuscript simply *dump* of data sciences metrics or bunch of data analytics
Other than those, which call for you to revise accordingly, @username_2 has given an insightful response.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/07/14
| 704
| 2,892
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can the experience of being a university lecturer in one of the best universities in the UK enhance the chances of securing a faculty position in top universities in the USA and Australia? Additionally, do other English-speaking countries place equal or greater value on experience gained from UK universities?
PS: I do know that my personal accomplishment is the most important factor, but I want to know the reputation and importance of work experience at UK universities.<issue_comment>username_1: Given that the UK treats [Lecturers (Grade 9)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_the_United_Kingdom) in about the same way that the US treats assistant (or even associate) professors, depending on probation, I'd say that such experience would be valued for any combined teaching/research position.
But, most hiring at US universities is at the Assistant Professor level and is for people fresh out of grad school with doctoral degrees. So, assuming that one has a doctorate and the university is willing to hire someone who is moving across universities it should be treated as a plus, equal to someone moving from one US university to another.
Some positions are open to people wanting to move up a level from assistant to associate, as well. The same should apply.
For level 10 people (Senior Lecturer) there are fewer openings and more scrutiny, but, again, the US is sophisticated enough to recognize that "Lecturer" has a different meaning in the US and in the UK.
The only information I have about Australia is that the system is similar to that of UK, so I doubt there would be an issue, but IANAA (I am not an Australian).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I Am An Australian, and "the experience of being a university lecturer in one of the best universities in the UK" would probably be relevant to a hiring committee in the following ways:
1. It shows you have previous lecturing experience.
2. Assuming you have a decent research record, it shows you can balance lecturing and research.
3. If you have good teaching reviews (from student or faculty feedback), it shows that you're a good lecturer.
In short, it's relevant in all the usual ways and I doubt the fact that it was in the UK, and not some other country, is particularly relevant. The UK system is similar in broad strokes to the Australian system, but there are enough little local quirks that the UK experience wouldn't by itself count for more. (I've just moved, in the same city, from one university which has two teaching terms a year to one which has three -- and that's a much larger change than anything else I've ever experienced!)
Australian universities understand full well that young academics (often) move all around the world, and hiring committees will know how to look up different universities and decide what to do with a candidate's CV.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/14
| 1,754
| 7,650
|
<issue_start>username_0: I sent an email to a professor to ask for a PhD position for one of his "few listed" projects, in which I am genuinely interested in to pursue my future research career. He responded that he would want to see my academic transcripts, which I provided. Next, he shown interest to talk over Skype and suggested a date and time. He confirmed and sent me one of his publication link and asked me to read it meanwhile and will discuss during meeting.
I want to know what are professor's expectations? What would he want to discuss about already published paper? Is it the methodology or possible extension of the work? Should I try to go in depth about the topic or study techniques?
Also what questions should I ask from him in that meeting?
I consider this upcoming meeting as an important step for my PhD position.<issue_comment>username_1: There are a few possibilities. One is that the professor wants your assessment about the accuracy of the claims made in the paper and the validity of the methodology.
More likely, perhaps, if this is an interest of the professor and not just a test of applicants, is about your ideas about possible extensions and related work suggested by the paper.
You should give it a critical reading and be able to summarize it succinctly, along with any objections or holes in the arguments made. You should think about possible extensions, but that is a much harder task, especially in some fields.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: A similar situation occurred to me, but when I had to find a supervisor for my master's thesis, who was a professor in another university.
After I asked him which were his research lines, he sent me various papers from his lab to read.
I don't think anything exceptional is expected here. Most probably, the professor wants you to have a better grip and knowledge of what are the methodologies and general research directions.
Read the article carefully, and try to formulate a few questions (e.g. "Why did you use method X instead of method Y, since they are both similar?", or "These results are interesting, it would be nice to do some further research about result X, from a different perspective").
Perhaps the professor wants to extend the research project described in the paper, and wants to see what you think about it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As someone who both had a similar experience with my PhD advisor-to-be, and who has used this for prospective PhD students, I can think a few reasons:
1. As in username_2's answer, they want you to read some of their previous work as a way to inform you about the topic you are applying for. This can be both to give you the opportunity to decide you aren't actually interested, and to help you get started.
2. Reading papers critically and being able to discuss them is an important part of being an academic, and they want to test that you can do this at a basic level. If this is the goal, then what you need to do to "pass" is to express comments, questions, criticisms, ideas to take the research further, etc., which show that you actually read and thought about the work. (Here there may be some caveats... Asking questions is good, but asking very basic questions which show you are not at all familiar with the field is probably not; likewise, harsh criticism for the basic premises of the research is probably not going to convince the professor to take you on to do more of this kind of research.)
3. If the PhD position has some room for you to chose the exact path of your project, the advisor may be trying to get some idea of what direction is most interesting to you.
4. The advisor may just want some framework to talk to you about science, so that they (and you!) can see if you fit together personally.
5. It's what their PhD advisor asked them to do when they were interviewing, and they don't know any better way to structure an interview with a prospective student.
You haven't put a location tag, but I do suspect that some of these may not hold for every professor in every culture. For what it's worth my experience is in the US and Northern Europe.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The professor wants you to be able to discuss the contents of his paper in an informed way.
Read it. Do you understand all the terminology? If not, do some research to see if it's just a different word for something you DO understand, or a truly unfamiliar area of study. If the latter, it's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but come clean. 'This isn't a branch of the subject that I've explored yet. Do you think it's relevant to my project?'
If you're comfortable with the topic of the paper, what will you say if asked for an opinion? Are you excited by any of the points, and their relevance to your project? Can you quote other sources that either reinforce or challenge his arguments?
But I said it all in my opening sentence.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Don't Overthink This
--------------------
You're going to have something like a job interview. It will probably be relaxed and informal, but that's what's happening. Among other things, your prospective supervisor is doing you a favor by telling you where the conversation is going start, so you can give yourself a leg up and come prepared. They're also doing themselves a favor by sparing themselves the time and effort of bringing you up to the point where they can talk about what they want to talk about.
No one except that professor can really say what they expect, especially without access to the paper. (I am not asking for a reference to the paper.)
But the professor is considering taking you on, and your task is to start with this paper, and let them mostly guide the conversation while convincing them that you're a good fit for the research group.
So as a baseline, you're expected to read the paper as well as you can. Not the normal skim you might give a casual recommendation, but really *read* it. If you have any relevant prior experience, they will *definitely* want to know that. If you think you have skills adjacent that could help, that too. Beyond that-- what interests you? What do you think? What confused you or made you curious? What would you do next?
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: My PhD advisor does the same thing and views it as some kind of interview/test to see if the prospective student would be a good fit for the group. What he always looked for is how well the student understood the paper by going figure by figure and asking them to explain the reported findings. I can't say for sure what your potential supervisor is looking for, but I think if you read the paper and understand their methods and the conclusions they arrived at, you should be good.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As a professor I might do something similar, the purpose to me would really be to get an idea if the student has a sufficient background to *read and understand* a research paper in the general area where they will be working. In order to gage the student's understanding I would ask questions about some technical aspects of the paper... however, I wouldn't actually expect a future PhD student to a great idea for future work or to make meaningful criticism on the methodology.
In general I find it really hard to gage whether a prospective student will be any good, and this sounds like a reasonable way of conducting an interview. I would also ask the student to describe some of their previous research or project-type work, and ideally I would also ask them to write something, to get an idea of their writing skills.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/14
| 4,254
| 18,164
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a paper with a co-author. I spent a considerable amount of time (several months) writing a first draft of the paper. I then sent it to co-author asking them to revise the draft and add their contribution in specified sections.
The co-author returned the draft within a few days. The required parts were added and the writing was heavily edited. The style of the new document looked similarly to a few other documents that I knew were produced by ChatGPT. I asked the co-author and they admitted (quite proudly) that they used ChatGPT to assist with writing and editing of the manuscript.
I was not happy with the resulted state of the document. There were several obvious errors, which I pointed to the co-author. But also, the whole document seemed a bit weird to read. I could not really define it, but reading it gave away a feeling that the document was AI-generated. I was concerned with the possibility that there could be other mistakes in the document, which are not immediately obvious, and that it could reduce the chances for the paper to pass through the peer review process.
I shared my concerns with the co-author. They agreed to correct the mistakes I noticed. They claimed that they checked the document after it was generated, but a small number of issues possibly remained. They dismissed my argument that the writing is unnatural and weird to read, and requested to point out specific line-by-line errors, which should be corrected. They suggested that I could proofread the document and edit it again before submission, since I have concerns about its quality.
I feel that co-author did not put sufficient effort in their writing, and leans on ChatGPT, my work as a co-author, and work of peer reviewers instead. This leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, but I do not know if this behaviour is unethical or wrong in some other way which I can't quite describe.
Are my concerns valid and how is it best to communicate them to the co-author?
---
My first language is not English, and the same for my co-author. I appreciate that ChatGPT can correct errors in the use of English and improve grammar. I am concerned that it might introduce factual mistakes, change slight variations of meaning, or generally make the text unpleasant to read (although as a non-English speaker I find it difficult to explain why it happens).<issue_comment>username_1: You're right to be angry at this. It is unethical and many journals expressly forbid use of ChatGPT during the preparation of manuscripts (Science and all Springer journals).
I might be reading too much into this, but since you didn't tell them straight up that it is unethical, I assume that the co-author is a superior. You could identify a journal that forbids use of ChatGPT and highlight their policy to your colleague.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not sure using ChatGPT to write papers is *necessarily* unethical (assuming proper citation). I wouldn't recommend it and many journals have explicitly banned it from the author list - though this is generally based on the argument that AI cannot fulfill all authorship criteria. I think it can become unethical if one tries to pass of AI-generated work as their own.
I think *editing* papers with ChatGPT is even more of a grey area. There are already plenty of editing companies that provide lower cost services that rely on AI. How is using a tool like ChatGPT to rework a paper *you wrote* any less ethical than paying for an editing service (whether that service uses humans or their own AI).
With that being said, your co-author doesn't actually sound like they are contributing to the writing. Instead they are shifting the work onto you. I don't think using ChatGPT in and of itself is the issue. The issue is that they are trying to take a shortcut and claim credit. Assuming they have contributed in other ways you could consider letting them know you expect more direct contribution to the writing. Or perhaps say that while ChatGPT is a powerful tool, their contribution to the manuscript must be their own. Finally you can always just express to them what you have said here, that you don't like the results of the AI edited/generated writing.
The nuclear option (which might be appropriate if they have not contributed otherwise) is to tell them editing with ChatGPT is not sufficient for authorship. And thus, if they wish to remain and author, they must make their own unique contributions.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I share your distaste for your coauthors use of ChatGPT, but I would not go as far as to say that *any* use of ChatGPT for academic writing is unethical. The following, however, is deeply disrespectful:
>
> They dismissed my argument that the writing is unnatural and weird to read, and requested to point out specific line-by-line errors, which should be corrected. They suggested that I could proofread the document and edit it again before submission, since I have concerns about its quality.
>
>
>
Your coauthor has made far-reaching changes to your draft, changing the tone and flow of the text, and introducing enough obvious errors to raise serious concerns on your side. It seems that your coauthor has not pointed out any specific line-by-line errors to you, and they have not proofread the document themselves. To follow through on the parallel with your coauthors own words above; they seem to have no concerns about quality.
This attitude is deeply disrespectful. It shows that your coauthor has little regard for your work and does not value your time and efforts at all. A respectful yet effective way to point this out is to simply return their request to them. A message along the following lines should do, perhaps with some fluff depending on culture:
>
> Thanks coauthor for going over my draft, and for addressing my concerns about the quality of your version of the draft. I've proofread it and edited it again, see the attachement. If you find any more errors or room for improvement, please point this out specifically line-by-line.
>
>
>
Of course you attach your original draft.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Many journals now allow the use of ChatGPT as a writing tool, similarly to grammar checkers or paid services, provided you leave a notice in the manuscript. Many journals have got text snippets on their website.
It depends on the journal. Many require a disclaimer similar to:
>
> ChatGPT has been used in the writing for the purpose of [....]. The authors take full responsibility of the output.
>
>
>
With regards to your co-author, the main problems are:
* Lack of proofreading
* despite ChatGPT being very error prone at this point
* no concern that ChatGPT's writing style is grammatically correct but very unnatural and sterile
* altogether, lack of effort in the project
Your co-author is too lazy to put in his own time into the project and too dumb to use ChatGPT appropriately, thus having a negative impact on the project. Don't work with him or her.
Life advice: who misbehaves once will also misbehave again, and you should axe them as soon as you can.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't see any ethical issues in using ChatGPT or some other automated systems to help write a paper. Just make sure that the publication target allows it eg see <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/193049/452> and if you generate large chunks you may also want to check for plagiarism.
If you are unhappy about your coauthor's work quality, that's a different issue.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: The title ("ethical") and the question are slightly divergent.
Personally, I think the issue is not so much ethics as long as the source (ChatGPT) is mentioned. However, given that the latter, in turn, does not cite its sources, clearly the acceptable ethics around use of the bot is still evolving.
"I could not really define it" - that, in my opinion, is the real crux of the problem. ChatGPT generates a strangely synthetic text, a bit too smooth to be true, while possibly introducing hard-to-find errors.
Now, I, for myself, very much do not like having my text substantially altered without good reason, because while writing it, I form a model of what I want to say and, if it's well structured, when revising for errors, I need only to fix the minor errors that remain to adjust. A complete rewrite forces me to re-read the text as if it is new, as if it comes from a third party, in other words, it is possibly even more work than writing it myself. Of course, when you collaborate, that's what you have to do, but if it is text that you wrote yourself and when it is your duty to write that section, that's a real nuisance.
I usually also will not rewrite other people's sections. I will comment and make suggestions, but try not to reformulate complete sections (maybe I would individual sentences - but not the full structure of thinking).
Perhaps the best analogy is code. It is easier to understand one's own code and understand why it works (or it may fail) than to try to understand someone else's. Sure, someone else may spot subtle bugs etc., but the overall structure - in general - is best understood by the author and best not changed without consulting the latter.
In short, your gut feeling is perfectly justified. The co-author took a text where you spent time and effort making it understandable and mangled it through an intransparent process. Now, they dump on you the effort to make sure that this mangled result is correct, while ripping out all mental support scaffold that you built while writing. This is not on. It is like auto-reorganizing your desktop without asking you and without good reason.
This is unethical, simply, because it is creating unnecessary work for you. It's just not a good collegiate behaviour and shirking off their duty to quality, accuracy, reliability and correctness of results.
How to communicate: tell your colleague that you spent a lot of time getting your contribution of the paper right, and do not have the capacity redoing the work effectively from scratch, by trying to sort out all mistakes that the bot introduced unnecessarily. If they decide to write their part via bot, you need to read it as if it comes from a third party and check meticulously for errors. That they expect a line-by-line pointing out of errors is a sign that they do not take your time seriously or they do not understand how the bot works. You need to decide if you push back to remove the errors or, after the second "review" round, say, "now you fix this". I have done that with code development - after having been told for the 4th or 5th time that my library contained the bug in a software we developed, and it wasn't, I told the colleague, "no, the bug is in yours, please fix it".
This is not really ok, and you can warn them that you have to declare the ChatGPT contribution (you may be found out anyway, there are checkers for this now, so hiding that fact is not an option, in case they should contemplate it) which may affect the paper's acceptance.
If they dismiss your issues, you need to consider the option of splitting the paper if that is at all possible.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Using GPT to write papers is completely unacceptable. This doesn't mean using it at all is bad- I use GPT literally every day for things like Python questions, debugging, or translating code to do a certain thing.
However, every single word in my papers is written by me or by coworkers. So, you're totally correct to be upset with them, that's NOT how this works. Every word on the page needs to be your own, not GPT's.
Edit: because passing another entity's words as your own is plagiarism.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: In my opinion usage of GPT is scientific misconduct. The core of science is citing the source of information correctly, so that it can be tracked back and put into context - and errors can be found.
As of now, if you let GPT make statements on your behalf there is not way for you to figure out (and thus you can not cite it correctly) if a certain statement/fact is actually derived specifically from a reference (even if you ask gpt to give these) or if that is actually only a reflection of what chat gpt typically would find referenced to statements relating that topic. So that means that in the core you make it completely impossible to trace back "your" logic and reasoning to it's original sources.
As a side effect there is no way for your coauthor to tell (without reading the citations) if that referenced paper actually says what is implicitly or explicitly stated or if gpt just found it typical to mention that one.
My recommendation: revert you paper to the state which you gave your coauthor, go to the supervisor/principal investigator or person representing the project and ask them about rewriting the paper without relying on contributions from said coauthor. If the coauthor is part of an institution, address the issue to the appropriate office there.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_9: I would argue that using ChatGPT is unethical (plagiarism) or inaccurate (often just lies). I think if ChatGPT is used it definitely has to be cited.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_10: There are already several good answers regarding whether your concerns about your co-author's behavior are valid (they are), so I will focus on the second part of the question:
>
> [...] how is it best to communicate them to the co-author?
>
>
>
Your co-author used ChatGPT without telling you, later admitted to using it after you asked them about it, and yet seems to still be under the impression that lightly edited AI-generated documents are indistinguishable from quality writing by a human. They are not: the fact that you took sufficient issue with the writing that it prompted a discussion about your collaborator's use of AI tools is strong evidence of the contrary, and something I would emphasize. If you found the writing bad, other readers are likely to find the writing bad. If your collaborator cannot see the difference, that's a failure on their part, and a sign they should definitely not use ChatGPT in the way they do, because they currently do not have the skills to transform the output of ChatGPT to the point it would be considered good academic writing.
Your co-author might then say that of course, ChatGPT's output needs some additional polishing to meet the quality standards of good published research and properly reflect the ideas of the human authors, and it is merely a tool to get a quick draft and/or some ideas. There, I would make the following points:
* Some people might get to a good document faster by editing a first draft generated by ChatGPT, some people might find it slow and painful work to modify the output of a Large Language Model to the point that it's no longer the AI's writing. Even if one thinks ChatGPT is a great help in their writing, one cannot expect that it's the case for other people, and should ponder whether that's how their co-authors work best and whether they're wasting their co-authors' time.
* Hiding how a document was generated is bad behavior in a collaboration. In the same way that one might not spend as much time checking grammar if one's co-author is a native English speaker, one does not proofread an AI-generated document in the same manner as one written by a human. In other situations, for example more time-constrained ones, you could have just blindly trusted that your collaborator did a good job, and ended up sending a bad manuscript to an editor. Your document might also get flagged for plagiarism because ChatGPT gave similar looking text to several of its users, or copied stuff almost verbatim from the internet.
Do: ask ChatGPT to find grammar mistakes in a text, or to suggest synonyms and alternative ways to convey some ideas, and use its output to improve your writing. Don't: ask it to produce several pages of output at once, edit 10% of it, and send that to your collaborator without disclosing that's how the document was produced.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Since it feels like an AI-generated text and contains obvious errors, it suggests to me that the co-authors just copy pasted the ChatGPT output, which seems like a terrible practice. From what you wrote, it seems that they might have even copied pasted the **whole document**. That honestly seems unethical to me, as it suggests that they would have tried to publish something that they are aware might not be true or might have been plagiarized. So I would say that your concerns are definitely valid. So if I were you, I would definitely not cooperate with them ever again. As to how to communicate it... The only thing that I can think of, that might end in a positive outcome, is to find a native English speaking person, who can identify the obviously AI-generated parts, and who can verbalize, why they feel off. Otherwise I am afraid you will have to either bite the bullet in some way, or to be very blunt with the co-authors and *force* them to put the effort in.
That being said, I find the opposition to **ANY** use of ChatGPT for academic writing in the answers/comments bizarre. People seem to act as if you **have to** put what ChatGPT generates **exactly** the way it is generated, even if it is wrong or feels wrong.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: I think it is is only a matter of time before AI will be dominant in a number of tasks that we have been doing manually up to now. I think that we should embrace this rather than fight it. There are ways to use ChatGPT for our advantage and to produce quick, efficient results - and all of this done ethically.
My own approach is to start with my draft text, sometimes could be a mix of sentences and bullet points and then ask ChatGPT to rewrite them in a cohesive section without introducing any other ideas.
So the idea is still yours, but its expression is composed by an AI tool. Surely not much different to using a paid editorial service that polishes your draft writing ?
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/07/14
| 675
| 2,112
|
<issue_start>username_0: My coauthors and I recently published a paper on <https://www.ijnrd.org/viewpaperforall?paper=IJNRD2307102>.
The doi which was assigned to us is <http://doi.one/10.1729/Journal.35162>.
According to my knowledge doi.org is the sole provider of doi.
Were we scammed into registering for a unscrupulous journal?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> What defines legitimacy of a DOI
>
>
>
Check the DOI on <https://dx.doi.org/>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B4hEZ.png)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: DOIs are unique identifiers governed by an international standard (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier>). They are of the form `doi:10.1109/5.771073` (often shorted to `10.1109/5.771073` by omitting the `doi:` part).
There is only one registration authority, the DOI Foundation, As stated on <https://www.doi.org>:
>
> The DOI Foundation is a not-for-profit organization. We govern the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system on behalf of the agencies who manage DOI registries and provide services to their respective communities. We are the registration authority for the ISO standard (ISO 26324) for the DOI system and we are governed by our Registration Agencies.
>
>
>
You can look up any DOI on their system, like this: <http://doi.org/10.1109/5.771073> which will resolve the name and redirect you to the publisher's current location for this item.
So: **to check that a DOI is valid, it should be of the form `10.numbers/suffix` *and* it should resolve on <https://doi.org>**
---
In your case, you can see how this is not actually a DOI, but a fake identifier:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oDHqZ.png)
The supposed DOI is a URL, but the domain is `doi.one` (not `doi.org`). If you visit the `doi.one` webpage, there is a typo in the first sentence:
>
> DOI.ONE System Provides a Digital Network for Research Artical *[sic]* and Digital Objects
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/14
| 924
| 4,011
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in economics. Before starting the PhD, I graduated with an MA in engineering. During my MA, I worked as a high school teacher in computer science. Should I list this activity on my CV in the ``teaching activities'' section together with my TA jobs, mainly as a signal of ability in lesson planning, classroom management etc., or should I omit it as it was (1) in a different field and (2) in high school?
Some context that may be useful as it varies between countries: I was in charge of the full course, not a lab assistant or similar. I was in a state school, and in my country state schools are more prestigious than private ones. The particular school I taught was not particularly prestigious nor disreputable and any person I meet would be unlikely to have attended it.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that it is fine to include it; especially if any job you seek includes teaching undergraduates.
The contraindications would be if it seems like padding a sparse CV or makes the CV overly long.
Teaching effectively implies more than subject matter expertise and much of it transfers between fields.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: For context, I am a member of the mathematics faculty at a small community college in the southwestern US. My job is mostly teaching, with a fair slice of committee / service work, and vanishingly little time for research. This is in line with most of the faculty here—we teach. I will also note that I have high school teaching experience, and it was one of the things which helped me to get this position.
If I were on a search committee and had two otherwise identical candidates—one with high school teaching experience, and the other with experience as a TA while in graduate school—I would probably lean towards the candidate who had taught high school. At the very least, I would ask the TA more deeply about their teaching experience.
My experience is that most TAs don't really get a lot of real teaching experience. TAs are generally used for labor: they deliver lectures (typically written by others), facilitate recitation (e.g. going over homework problems or proctoring quizzes, which doesn't say much about the facilitators teaching ability), and they grade (a lot). TAs typically do *not* get a lot of leeway to write their own lectures, let alone curricula for entire classes. High school teachers, on the other hand, typically have a much freer hand, and are much more responsible for all aspects of running a class.
As such, my sense is as follows: if you are looking for a teaching position, you absolutely should include your experience teaching high school—I can't imagine it hurting you, and it might help.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: As an addendum to username_2's answer, some colleges and universities have undergraduate programs emphasized at teaching future high school teachers. In the US, for instance, many states formerly had a "state teacher's college" for which this was their entire mission. Since then, these college have morphed into more comprehensive institutions, but teacher preparation is often still a big focus.
If you are applying to a job at such a school, then high school teaching experience would *certainly* be a plus. You'll be better able to provide instruction relevant to future teachers, perhaps with tips about how they might teach content to their own students. You may even have direct experience with the curriculum and instructional standards that they'll be expected to follow. And you'll be able to provide information and advice to students embarking on a teaching career.
Even where this is not a main focus, there will usually be some fraction of the undergraduate population that are interested in pursuing teaching careers, and any institution may value your experience as a resource for those students.
So yes, I would certainly include it, and in some cases you may want to give it special emphasis in your application.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/14
| 1,144
| 4,790
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate student majoring in physics and mathematics, who is preparing to begin applying to graduate programs in physics. In doing so, I've reached out to a few people for advice, and I've received a lot of conflicting opinions on various topics. Among them is the importance of reaching out to potential PI's, and how much doing so potentially affects my admissions odds.
1. **Firstly, how and when should one reach out to a potential PI?** I've "cold-called" professors plenty of times under other circumstances, however I'm not sure what the etiquette here is. Should I write multiple faculty members in the department? What and how much information should I provide about myself? Does it make sense to reach out to faculty at highly-competitive "reach" schools (I'm planning to apply to Columbia, for instance, and I imagine they receive tons of emails, so it seems a bit silly to "cold-call" random Ivy-league faculty)?
2. **Secondly, how much does it affect my odds of admission?** I've read and been told that communicating with a faculty member can effectively guarantee admission, if you can "sell yourself" such that they are interested in taking you on as (and presumably funding you as) a student. Is this true? Does *not* reaching out to potential PI's put me at a significant *disadvantage*?
I'm not sure what the etiquette is here, nor how much effort I should be putting into this.<issue_comment>username_1: I wouldn't do that. I would just apply and express interest in who I wanna work with. Once you're accepted, then you'll decide who you'll work with. But, I'm not in physics (thankfully!!!!!!!!!), so perhaps it may be different.
In my field of public policy for example, I can reach out to anyone anywhere, since our research isn't tied to a lab, but in the harder sciences, who you work with is literally based off where you're located, as far as I understand.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, contacting a prospective PI or several PIs is definitely a good idea, and this may critically affect your odds of admission -- provided you do it correctly.
To understand what "correctly" really means, put yourseld in the shoes of a professor looking for graduate students. The professor, of course, wants the candidates to be hard-working, creative, intellectually brilliant -- that's obvious. Above that, the professor always wants candidates to show initiative and to know exactly what they want. Strong would be a candidate who already has interest in and some knowldege of the area in which they would like to work under the tutelage of this professor.
For example, a scholar working on gravitational-waves detectors would be pleased to receive from an applicant an e-mail stating that (s)he has read this scholar's recent works on a certain type of detector, and would like to join a groups designing these devices. Such an e-mail will serve the purpose of demonstrating that the applicant is mature and has made a well-informed choice.
I am aware of several cases when making such a contact played a decisive role in the admissions process.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I get a dozen such emails per month (and this isn't a lot). In most case the sender has clearly not done their homework and know nothing about my research program: I ignore those.
In rare cases (< 5% of the time), the sender has actually cared (at least pretend correctly) to have read some of my papers, in which case I will usually reply to the email.
On balance, reaching out will make limited difference. If your application is not competitive, nothing can save you. If your application is borderline, then a good word from a prospective thesis director will never hurt: they can single out an application and say they would be interested in supervising X is the file is acceptable and the resources are there. This in no way replaces the formal requirement to apply: I know of no system where supervisors directly accept students to a program. Also, even if you contact someone, this person may choose not to get involved in the admission process and let chips fall where they fall. In other words, emailing ahead of time is a low-return proposition, but may on occasion make an enormous difference.
Finally, there are plenty of other posts on this site on how to write a proper email when "cold-calling". You should never email "random" faculty: do your homework and be sure that your email conveys your professional interest in the specifics of the research program. No lollypop statements like "Since I was 5 I always wanted to go to Columbia" or "I would be the honour of my life to work under your supervision": these are immediately flagged as false compliments and leave a bad impression.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/15
| 1,235
| 5,392
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing my Ph.D. in the Social Sciences and I am reflecting on how to optimize the workflow with my thesis committee (three advisors) in the implementation of feedback on chapters or papers. I understand this is a matter of negotiating between us. However, it would be useful for me to hear your experiences and how you perceive the pros and cons you see of each approach.
For example, if I write a draft, I could:
1. Send the draft to the first advisor, receive and implement their feedback, then send the edited draft to the second advisor, and so on. I imagine this would slow down the process considerably and would require many more rounds of editing.
2. Send the draft to the first advisor, receive their feedback, then send the draft with the first advisor’s comments to the second advisor (if the first advisor agrees), and so on with the third. This would allow each committee member to have an idea of the other members’ feedback and possibly react to it directly (agreeing, disagreeing, building on it).
3. Send the draft individually, at the same time, to the three committee members. I have heard of people doing that and then sending them an overview of everyone’s comments, and the way they intend to implement them, as if they were peer reviewers. This would allow me to send out the draft to the three advisors at the same time.
How did you manage this during your Ph.D., and which were the pros and cons of your approach?<issue_comment>username_1: I think approach 3 is the only viable one -- that is, always sending your work to all three advisors at the same time -- and a regular schedule might help ("I'll send you some thesis work on the first Monday of every month, and if you give me some feedback I hope to incorporate it within a month or two").
With any of the other approaches, you risk any one advisor becoming the bottleneck on your writing process. Your advisors will be very busy people and they will often delay giving you feedback (unfortunately). By soliciting their advice in parallel, you should have at least one opinion to work on at any one time.
Don't worry about second-order "What does Advisor X think about Advisor Y's opinion?" questions. Your thesis is *your thesis* and it is ultimately your responsibility to produce the original knowledge it will contain. Your advisors' opinions of each other are their responsibilities, not yours.
(Indeed, in the unlikely and unfortunate event that they become hostile to each other over your thesis, that will be a further argument for asking them all "in parallel" for their feedback. If you are always working on Advisor X's feedback and then sending the results to Advisor Y, but they disagree, you are setting yourself up for repeated unpleasant interactions. Soliciting and receiving their feedback in parallel means you should be free to work on either, both, or neither comment, as you choose.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: May I suggest option (4), which is really a variation of option (3):
4. Use an online tool to write your drafts (Overleaf if you are using Latex, something like Sharepoint or Office 365 if you are using MS Word), and give all your advisors access. This way, people will always read the current version, and every decent tool like this has the option for multiple people to comment, and for everybody to see each other's comments in realtime. Note that you still need to inform your supervisors when you specifically want feedback and on what, even when everybody has access to your draft you should not assume that they are just constantly monitoring your writing.
Options 1 and 2 slow you down too much, and option 3 is honestly kind of obnoxious for your supervisors (knowing that they are likely spending time on feedback that two other people are also giving).
---
Going a bit beyond the actual scope of the question, with three supervisors in different places you really should think and discuss a lot more about your supervision process and the different roles of your three advisors, to the extent that this question may become redundant altogether. Since I am not in the social sciences I cannot say what typical supervision roles would be, but you and your team should be in agreement whose job it is to provide day-to-day coaching on writing, who watches the "big picture", who scrutinises your method, etc. etc. The danger with a large, disjoint supervision team and no explicit discussion of roles is that everybody assumes the other people are supervising you anyway, and that they can lean back.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I also have another option...
I work in the sciences with large teams, sending each version of a paper around all authors is generally infeasible, especially when working with new researchers who will need a lot of feedback and revisions to get the writing to a good standard.
So for each section there should be a single person who gives feedback on the early drafts. Only once this person is satisified that the paper is ok, do we send it round the other authors for feedback and/or approval. This cuts down the amount of work for everyone considerably.
For some students it's the same first person for all their chapters/papers, for others we split the work amongst the supervisory team, with each person taking the sections they have the strongest affinity for.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/16
| 871
| 3,565
|
<issue_start>username_0: Perhaps I can contextualize the question better, but I’m curious if there’s a kind of incubation trajectory by which new academic fields emerge.
In contemporary scholastic publishing, is there some graded sequence of steps, like, first, a paper is published in some existing, established field’s journal; next, if more papers are published citing that paper, a conference may be organized, recognizing the topic in its own right; and then? Do professors decide to found a journal, perhaps? And then, somewhere, someone designs the first textbook, and/or degree, in the topic?
At each of these stages, what kind of academic regulation is there, or structure, to determine if something is robust enough to attain that standing?
Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: A field can obviously be pretty large, or not. It's essentially when a class of people within one field (usually) start working on a topic and it spreads elsewhere. For example, i work in econometrics. One of my main areas of interest is machine learning and synthetic control designs for causal inference. Putting applied pieces aside, the machine learning developments to SC are at this point their own field. You originally had economists like <NAME> and her husband, <NAME>, discuss it as the (now often quoted) "most important method in the last 15 [now 20] years".
Now, people from Columbia, to MIT, to places in China, Stanford, and elsewhere, they're all clamoring to make developments on the method. To be a little less specific, it becomes a proper field, to me, when you could legitimately write a book or 2 on the subject. After articles stop doing a topic justice, after it goes beyond one or three papers, then you can call it a field that people do real work in. But this is just my view, there's no hard and fast standard that I know of.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The typical trajectory of a field is that first people publish their work at the fringes of existing journals, then hold workshops with like-minded people, then perhaps found a journal or two that are dedicated to publishing articles in this area, and finally there are full-fledged conferences.
In my own particle field, Computational Science and Engineering (CS&E), people originally published in journals such as the SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, originally founded in 1964, and in particular in engineering-oriented journals. Sometime in the 1980 people started to think of CS&E as a separate direction, there were workshops, and journals such as the SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing (originally founded in 1980) started to gain traction even though they were relatively small until around 2000. The first SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering I went to was in 2003, when it had ~300 people. (I believe the first one in the series was held in 2001.) The last one I went to, in 2023, had about 2000 people.
I think that this kind of trajectory is pretty typical for fields.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is another criterion.
When a topic stops depending on individual people or tight-knit clusters working on it to make progress, I would call it a field. In other words, if you can take main player/clusters out and there are still people working on it, it becomes a field.
I have seen an exotic research question ramp up into a community research question in the matter of very few years. It's a field now. It's not a huge community, but it does not depend on specific clusters of people anymore to survive.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/16
| 853
| 3,565
|
<issue_start>username_0: I came across a paper from a tweet by a researcher (in the field of computer science, specifically interpretable AI or Explainable AI). I had a query in that field, to answer which I could not find sufficient information online. So I was wondering if it would be a good idea to directly tweet the query to that researcher. But I was wondering, if that would be a good practice of social media interaction and tried to find other alternatives which could be easily deemed as acceptable. Alas, now I have lost track of the paper as well as the researcher.
So, I thought of posting the following question here for future:
Is it a good practice to tweet a query directly to the researcher on whose research work you have the mentioned query?<issue_comment>username_1: A field can obviously be pretty large, or not. It's essentially when a class of people within one field (usually) start working on a topic and it spreads elsewhere. For example, i work in econometrics. One of my main areas of interest is machine learning and synthetic control designs for causal inference. Putting applied pieces aside, the machine learning developments to SC are at this point their own field. You originally had economists like <NAME> and her husband, <NAME>, discuss it as the (now often quoted) "most important method in the last 15 [now 20] years".
Now, people from Columbia, to MIT, to places in China, Stanford, and elsewhere, they're all clamoring to make developments on the method. To be a little less specific, it becomes a proper field, to me, when you could legitimately write a book or 2 on the subject. After articles stop doing a topic justice, after it goes beyond one or three papers, then you can call it a field that people do real work in. But this is just my view, there's no hard and fast standard that I know of.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The typical trajectory of a field is that first people publish their work at the fringes of existing journals, then hold workshops with like-minded people, then perhaps found a journal or two that are dedicated to publishing articles in this area, and finally there are full-fledged conferences.
In my own particle field, Computational Science and Engineering (CS&E), people originally published in journals such as the SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, originally founded in 1964, and in particular in engineering-oriented journals. Sometime in the 1980 people started to think of CS&E as a separate direction, there were workshops, and journals such as the SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing (originally founded in 1980) started to gain traction even though they were relatively small until around 2000. The first SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering I went to was in 2003, when it had ~300 people. (I believe the first one in the series was held in 2001.) The last one I went to, in 2023, had about 2000 people.
I think that this kind of trajectory is pretty typical for fields.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is another criterion.
When a topic stops depending on individual people or tight-knit clusters working on it to make progress, I would call it a field. In other words, if you can take main player/clusters out and there are still people working on it, it becomes a field.
I have seen an exotic research question ramp up into a community research question in the matter of very few years. It's a field now. It's not a huge community, but it does not depend on specific clusters of people anymore to survive.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/16
| 1,004
| 4,137
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been applying to some universities for semesters starting in Jan 2024, and I expected that I can receive the decision letter in 2 or 3 months later.
However, 2 months ago, a professor actively emailed me (he knew me because another professor forwarded my Ph.D. inquiry to him) and he wanted me to come in the Fall semester for a project. His offer was really good and I wanted to keep his offer as a backup option, so I said that I'm interested in his offer and promised to send my applications in the future. However, I made the big mistake of not telling him that I was also waiting for other universities.
A week ago, he emailed me again to say that he had finalized the grant for me and was ready to recruit me immediately for the Fall semester (despite that I hadn't submitted the application to him) and wanted an answer from me. I had to admit that I couldn't accept his offer now because I also waited for other universities.
Now I feel extremely guilty and embarrassed because he probably had to do a lot of things to acquire his funding and now I just made him waste a lot of time and effort.
I just wondered if any professors get into this situation, how can they solve it?<issue_comment>username_1: Basically they work to find someone else and failing that try to keep the money available for a future hire if possible. I can't say whether that works in any given case, though. Sometimes the money returns to the source. There are lots of possibilities.
But there is no reason to feel guilty. At this point your responsibility is to yourself.
I don't know if you explained that you await other offers, but that would be natural. If you ask, it is possible that he can keep you in mind while searching elsewhere.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Speaking as a research administrator in the US, he should not write any proposal to support a single very special person who is not considered senior/key personnel. Students are considered replaceable and interchangeable, and if he gets the funding, but has no personnel, he may be able to recruit from another lab, get a postdoc instead, etc. If not, a no-cost extension may be an option as well. He may expend his own effort to complete the work.
This was not how I'd advise you to build relationships with academics (finding funding and personnel stresses people out like crazy), and you left him with a potential issue he will have to resolve, but it's hardly the worst problem to have. He'll be fine.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Your assumption that
>
> he probably had to do a lot of things to acquire his funding
>
>
>
is not quite correct. It *is* a lot of work putting a grant application together, but most of that work is spent describing how wonderful and feasible the project is and how wonderful and unique the investigators (postdocs, lecturers, professors) are, not how wonderful the students will be.\*
In a grant application, PhD students are present mostly as an expenditure item, and grant proposals rarely assume that a specific student or a student with *a very particular set of skills* will be present (because, after all, these are not usually *skills they have acquired over a very long career*). A professor who has "lost their student" can usually recruit another student, hire a research assistant, ~~overwork~~ inspire their postdoc, or collaborate with someone who does have a new student.
Please don't feel too bad (although you can, and should, write an apologetic email). This is not a huge setback for anyone. Things will work out.
---
\*(After all, he didn't ask you for any information to go on the grant ... did he? Because *that* would be really strange.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You're likely overestimating your particular importance to the project.
Ph.D. students are disposable, and are the first to be let go when grants run out.
You'll likely lose this particular academic's support and collaboration, at least for the foreseeable future, but you have to look for the position that aligns the best for you.
He'll be alright. Look after yourself.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/17
| 3,166
| 13,324
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a Ph. D. student just entering my third year. Last winter, I submitted a proposal for a major fellowship/grant in my field, and last Friday my advisor told me that I had been offered funding. However, for quite a long while, I've been debating with myself about mastering out, and haven't yet brought it up with my advisor.
I have until this Thursday (and preferably sooner) to accept or decline the funding.
The grant is extremely competitive - only about 10% of proposals are accepted. It would be three years worth of funding guaranteed, and (if things go according to plan), I would get three papers out of it - enough for most or all of my dissertation. My advisor has never even heard of someone turning it down. However, there are several concerns making it a very difficult decision.
First, I based the proposal in part on experience I planned to gain from the project I was working on at the time - what was originally intended to be my candidacy project. (Candidacy at my school is basically "Write a paper, submit it to a journal, and give a talk on your research to your committee.") However, I was struggling with the project, priorities changed, and that project was moved to the back burner while a different one, intended to get me to a paper and candidacy much faster, became my primary focus. The feedback on the proposal is only available to the PI currently, so my advisor can see it but I can't, and according to her the proposal was accepted in part because of this experience that I fully intended to have, but now still don't. (I was completely transparent that the work was still very much in progress, but still...) So I'd essentially have to start off delayed and make up for lost time.
Second, my advisor has concerns about my productivity and ability to stay on schedule, and If I'm being honest, her concerns are entirely justified. Ideally, I would already have scheduled or even finished my candidacy exam by now. However, due to schedule slip on my part, that hasn't happened yet. My advisor wants a first draft of my paper by mid-August, a deadline I'm worried I can't make, and has set a hard deadline for the exam of December this year. (To further complicate things, my department's grad student handbook says the candidacy exam *can* happen any time in the first three years, but my advisor claims that the handbook is incorrect - the deadline is two and a half years unless extenuating circumstances justify an extension.)
I've really been struggling to make progress on my work - I have to struggle against some kind of mental barrier to even start working, have a hard time staying focused, and when I do manage to get work done, I tunnel-vision on certain tasks while neglecting others. I've been going to the university counseling center, but it hasn't helped much, and if anything I've been getting worse recently. So if I don't find a way to improve, there's a real risk that I miss the candidacy deadline, or make that deadline but run out of time for the Ph. D. If that happens, the grant money would basically end up wasted when it could have gone to someone else.
Furthermore, I honestly don't even really like my proposal in the first place. It was a rewrite and improvement of a proposal I submitted elsewhere, and while it's a big improvement over that version, I really only wrote and submitted it because I couldn't think of a better idea to propose instead, and my advisor wanted me to submit *something*. A part of me was honestly hoping for it to be rejected.
In large part because of these issues, I've been thinking for a while about mastering out. (I'm not sure how long, really, but at least 6 months). However, I don't have any sort of plan B (I often feel like I never even had a plan A) and don't know if there are any careers in my field that aren't either research or teaching. I also worry I won't really be able to transfer my skills to another field - I'm not a good programmer, just a barely adequate one, and my field is pretty much pure research. Since the work on my candidacy project would probably become a large part of my master's degree anyway, I've been trying to focus on getting the work done while I learn enough to make a decision - but declining the fellowship while staying in the Ph. D. program would be pure insanity.
In short, I now have to make a decision I haven't felt comfortable even discussing with my advisor by this Thursday. I have no idea what to do; please give me advice.<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like there are a lot of things that you need to make your mind up about and for many of them you need more information before you can even take a decision one way or another.
First of all, can you take a couple of days of to collect your thoughts?
Do you have trusted friends or family or a trusted advisor you can reach out to even if it is not your PhD advisor? I would recommend expressing your doubts at some point, since they cannot help or advise you if they don't know, but I can also see that you may not want to start there.
As for options after 'mastering out': can you contact the career center at your university/institute or alumni from the lab?
This would be the time to take some of those get to know yourself or career tests to see what comes out. Plenty of books out there that might be helpful too, like what color is my parachute. None of those are compatible with rush decisions, though.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: What worries me is that, based on what you wrote, you don't seem particularly interested in the proposed project anymore, and you are lacking some technical skills/knowledge to successfully carry it out. You seem to be struggling a lot with your current workload (and I'm not blaming you, graduate school is draining and though. One needs to have the right mindset, enough motivation and a lot of endurance to go through it) and, based on what you describe about having mental barriers and problems focusing, probably you've reached a "burnout state". Accepting being paid for working in a project you don't slightly like anymore and for which you are not prepared enough is, in my opinion, a bad idea. My honest advice would be not pursuing a major project you don't like, taking it just because you have the chance to do so. You will be wasting your time and money (as well as other people's time and money). If you are seriously thinking about accepting the grant, write down the positive aspects it would have in your life; maybe you are indeed interested in the topic, just tired because of all the work you've had? Do you think you will have time enough to learn what you were supposed to learn during this time?
I would also recommend you to try to calm down (even if you don't have enough time to think about the situation with the deepness and thoughtfulness it deserves), and **to talk about it with your advisor**. She has way more experience than you in the field, more details about your situation and she can give you honest feedback about the matter. Anyway, you need to talk with her about your plans of leaving your PhD program with a master's degree. Indeed, I'm surprised you haven't talked about this plan with her sooner. She can give you important advice not only for finishing your degree, but also for figuring out possible jobs for you out there.
Lastly, I would like to address this:
>
> I really only wrote and submitted it because I couldn't think of a better idea to propose instead, and my advisor wanted me to submit something. A part of me was honestly hoping for it to be rejected.
>
>
>
**Never** apply for important things (like major fellowships or job posts) without having a clear idea on why are you doing it or why you want it. Be kind to yourself and don't put yourself in a situation like this anymore. I know it's easier said than done, and that we indeed make a lot of important choices based on what others want or expect from us, but remember that, if you get the opportunity you are asking for, you are the one that needs to do the hard job. And it is something you can do only if you have the motivation and inner convictions to do so.
Best of luck.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: So there are two things I see from this question, the first is are you still interested in doing a PhD, the second is do you have any neuroatypicalities that explain your behaviour.
The first thing is asking yourself if you are still interested in doing the PhD, given what you've described it sound like you may also be suffering burnout (essentially your brain has been run ragged and you need to slow it down). Try taking some time off for the next couple of days, focus on thinking what you want to do long term if there are any alternatives to what you are currently doing (and make sure not to knee jerk reaction and say there are no alternatives). Work out if you are still wanting to do a PhD/get into academia and have just not been taking care of yourself, or if you have realised academia is not where you truly want to be.
The second is to try to work out if you are neuro-atypical in any way. My first thought is that you have ADHD/ADD, lack of focus/periods of hyper focus are standard (I have it as well). If you don't have support it often feels like you are incompetent since you can't finish things (particularly papers or last bits of research). Excluding medication one way of avoiding the hyperfocusing stopping you from realising there are smarter ways to work is to schedule in 30 minutes a day for a walk or a run or some other kind of light workout that makes you lightly sweat, and make sure to treat it as part of your work, otherwise it will be put to the side. For starting focus regularly engaging in heavier exercise and listening to music helps significantly. Exercise that forces you to focus or hurt yourself/others (e.g. martial arts/climbing/parkour) can help you train yourself to focus.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: It sounds like you've been really brave to express all of these thoughts here, and you should be proud of yourself for that. I'll slip into therapist mode for a while, if that's okay; what I am about to say may be right on target or completely off. Only you can say.
It sounds like you have a lot of anxiety that, to you, is tied to *external* decisions you have to make about your future (PhDing on vs mastering out; accepting vs declining the fellowship). However, these anxieties often have their roots in *internal* uncertainty about *who we are and what our story is*.
[Narrative psychology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_psychology) describes people as always reaching for "the story of my life" to imbue their decisions, big and small, with meaning, and hence to decide which way to go. But learning what life story we are comfortable with takes conscious time and effort that we often neglect, partly because that work draws out negative feelings that we want to avoid (and partly because capitalism wants us busy doing economic activity without being sure just why we're doing it).
When we come to a major decision without deeply grasping our personal story, therefore, we find ourselves deeply anxious and unsure which choice feels more coherent with who we think we are, and then anxiety overwhelms is.
(Stop here. Take a breath. If what I'm writing makes no sense to you, that's perfectly okay; go take a walk or do something you enjoy doing and don't waste any more time reading this stuff. :) )
---
You can't rewire your internal story in a week, but please reflect deeply on this: *you will still be who you are whether you stay in the PhD or master out, and whether you take the grant or not.*
Academia, in particular, is extremely toxic about wrapping our identity around our job title, our papers and our grants. We feel like we will be happy if only that paper gets accepted or that grant gets funded. We don't acknowledge narratives like yours, where you applied for a major grant feeling full well that you weren't quite up to it (although you might be; anxiety has a way of devaluing our capabilities).
And yet we are more than our papers or grants. We are also our hobbies, our families, our culture, our neighbourhood, our holidays, our fundamental beliefs, our bodies, our souls. Against all that, decisions about grants or career should feel -- not small, but not seismic; decisions we can make trying to reach a future that best expresses who we are, while making peace with any consequences that are beyond our control or prediction.
So, you absolutely need to talk to your supervisor about this. She will have concrete and objective knowledge about you and your competencies that you don't. But you need to talk to *yourself* about what you're going through. These difficulties you're facing aren't going to go away if you take up the grant, but they also aren't going to go away if you master out. You owe yourself every chance to face your problems head on, and you should absolutely find better help than your university counsellor.
But I just have a hunch that, ultimately, you need to *learn who you are and accept it*. I can't tell you how exactly to do that, but if you know that's what you have to do, then that's a start.
All the best!
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/18
| 2,048
| 8,272
|
<issue_start>username_0: **What happened:**
I got caught cheating on an online exam consisting of 25 multiple-choice questions and a written part of my exam worth 55/80 marks. I had access to a one-page cheat sheet, but I still went to another website to double-check a few of my multiple-choice questions. However, I didn't cheat on my written answers.
I think deep down, I felt guilty, but I repressed my memories of what happened when I cheated on the exam to the point where I even forgot I cheated. It didn't help that I have a bunch of mental illnesses I had to deal with: depression, anxiety, ADHD, autism.
When I first got an email, I thought it was the wording of my written answers, but then it turned out there were screenshots of me accessing the website. At that time, I got an anxiety attack and I denied it by trying to show the reasoning behind my answers.
**When I met with my teacher:**
A few days later I went to the meeting with some stuff prepared and my cheat sheet, but then the evidence of the screenshots was there and I panicked. I got an anxiety attack in front of my professor. I didn't know what to do and felt like the world was ending. At that moment, I denied it and tried explaining my side of the story, saying that there were technical difficulties and I had trouble with my exam, causing me to get logged out. Those technical difficulties happened, but I think the memories returned at that point, making me feel even worse. I didn't know how to explain that I felt guilty, and I felt like I would get expelled or suspended. I already struggle with talking to people on a daily basis. Worse, the incident would be on my transcript and record.
**I admitted that I cheated and took accountability:**
After the meeting, I had time to reflect and I emailed my professor about how I wanted to own up to what I did so that it never happens again (I finally admitted to what happened), and how I wanted someone with me in the exam at all times. My professor decided to give me a 25% deduction, which I am extremely grateful for, but I'm still really anxious about if it would appear on my transcript. I guess it's a consequence I can never forget.
I'm planning on transferring to a university since I'm currently in college, which is why I'm so scared about this being on my record. What if the university doesn't accept me because I cheated once in the past? Plus, I'm not sure how to move forward. I feel like a horrible person because I have to live with this mistake. I really want to take accountability and move forward, but I don't know how. It also sucks because I was never taught how to study and usually relied on pure memorization. I want to be a better person, but I feel like I never can because of what I did.
What do I do? How can I move forward and ensure this doesn't happen again? I don't want to succumb to the temptation of cheating or to my impulses again.
**edit:** For clarification, this was the first time I cheated. I never cheated in high school, and I always make sure that my citations are correct so I don't accidentally plagiarize. But I always felt so overwhelmed to be perfect because I had expectations from others to fulfill. I'm not as strict with it as I was in high school, but I'm still recovering from the mental burnout and the negative effects it caused me. I feel like even if I got away with it, I don't know if I can even keep this secret. Over time, I know that the guilt will fester, and I'll end up confessing to a friend or my parents about it.
I feel like my mind is a jumbled mess. I feel regretful for forgetting that I cheated and denying the accusation out of panic. I want to die of shame and embarrassment because I know what I did was wrong. I will talk to a therapist about this, but I feel like I'm a humiliation, like I'm a disgrace. I hate myself so much for this. I cried myself to sleep, and I feel like I can't even function as a proper human being.
I already sent a thank you email to my professor, but I'm planning on sending a reflection letter because I feel like I need to show that I want to improve myself.<issue_comment>username_1: In order to ensure that you don't cheat again, I suggest you think why do you cheat on exams.
If it is because you are not sufficiently prepared for the exam, then the best course of action is to plan your studying, not overload on classes, and commit to the classes you are currently taking.
If it is because you are feeling anxious or depressed, I suggest seeking professional help to deal with those issues, which likely affect you in more ways than just how you handle yourself in classes.
Another point I will mention is that there is no shame in doing poorly in a class. Students often breeze through high-school where things were easy for them, and then receive a rude awakening in college. Accept that you are learning difficult things now, and that you won't be perfect. I got a C in calculus 101 and it's the grade I'm most proud of, went on to do a PhD in math. When you retake a class you get to learn stuff better, and understand course expectations more. I have a lot of respect for students who overcome adversity, and this is something that graduate admission committees do look at (e.g. a student who did poorly on their first year and then moved on to do really well on their last couple of years may actually scan positively for some).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Disclaimer: I am not a therapist nor a school counselor. This is just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.**
It seems like you are showing genuine remorse for what you did. That's a good sign. You should be very thankful to this professor. Typically, cheating means expulsion and/or a grade of F in the class. While I don't condone what you did, I do understand the insane pressure to do well. Perhaps it is time to do some soul searching and think why you are pursuing a college degree. Is it because you want to please your parents or because you want to better yourself? Although the first reason may indeed push you to greater heights, it will inevitably catch up with you at a point where you are burnt-out and fed up with it all. It is not sustainable motivation. If that's the case (which is my guess), then at least find an academic track that you like doing. I started as a pre-med student in undergrad, so that I would be the first MD in the family. But after some rather regretful accidents in the chemistry lab (I had to pay $10 dollars for a broken pipette) and some low scores in human anatomy, I soon realized that it wasn't for me. I didn't want to force it anymore and went my own way with a mathematics specialization, without caring what my parents thought.
Also, while I do get the anxiety and mental health concerns, do realize that poor mental health and anxiety are NOT excuses for poor behavior. If you suffer from mental health issues, follow up with your therapist (which you seem to be doing already). I am not a PhD in psychology, but this sounds an awful lot like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or the like. What stands out to me is the suddenly cheating without remembering (a compulsion) in response to a trigger to double-check (an obsession). Now you feel lots of shame and guilt directed at yourself. Let's say for argument's sake that you do have OCD. The treatment for that is exposure-response-prevention (erp) therapy and being able to sit with the discomfort of uncertainty about your future (since you express concerns with it being in your record). In that case, you would want to gradually expose yourself to triggering situations, such as interacting with the professor. It isn't an easy thing to treat, but it can be done. But again, this is just a hypothetical scenario, not actual medical advice.
Again, I get that mental health issues make studying much more difficult than what it needs to be. I would have a conversation with your therapist and ask if he or she can provide a letter to request special accommodations. This is only to level the playing field and can give you assistance when taking quizzes or exams. There is no shame in using these if you need them. Sometimes a matter of extra time can make a lot of difference. I wish you all the best.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/18
| 1,652
| 7,464
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the Fall I will be completing my last year of undergrad. Once I graduate I want to get my PhD, and so grad school applications are approaching.
I’ve been doing research with a professor at my university over the past year, and I’m continuing this research into the Fall. Generally speaking, it’s been going pretty well. I enjoy the research and it’s been productive. I’ve also been doing this research with another undergrad at my university.
I have a dilemma with him, though. Truthfully, over the past year, I have been much more serious about the research, have contributed all of the major insights, and written essentially all of both papers. Our research meetings (between me and him) essentially consist entirely of me explaining what I’ve been working on, and he does not really contribute to our conversations. He also sometimes says things which indicate to me he does not even truly understand the research problem. I’ve felt alone in this process much of the time.
I have put this past me, since I like him, and I know that what matters most is conducting meaningful research. However, a recent conversation with him and my advisor kind of sent me off the edge, and I am looking for advice about what to do moving forward. Specifically, he expressed that he wants to continue working with me on the research in the Fall (which I was not expecting), even though he will have a full-time job and many other responsibilities. I am not confident that he will be able to contribute to the research, given my experience over the past year when his responsibilities were much lower.
Further, my professor mentioned that working on research alone is better for grad school admissions. I am not from a top university and I know admissions are extremely competitive for my field. I now have this strong emotion, whether justified or not, that having my research partner’s name on our work…what feels like just my work...will damage my chances. This emotion only builds when I consider the research situation in the Fall, where I’ve cleared out much of my academic schedule for the research, and he has significantly more responsibilities to juggle. I don’t consider myself cutthroat, so I hate that I get angry when I think about the prospects of him being put above me in the admissions process because of this situation. The upside is that I’m pretty sure my professor knows I’m carrying the operation and hopefully this would come through in his recommendation.
My current plan is to talk with my research partner about these concerns tactfully (specifically the research in the Fall). However, I am nervous he will convince himself he will have the time and energy to contribute, for which I am not confident as mentioned. I also do not want to burn bridges, as it is not good professionally, I don’t want to create a division, and he is my friend. I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. Does anyone have advice on this situation and maybe where my mindset is flawed?<issue_comment>username_1: I would consider having a chat with your professor about your concerns. Express your commitment to the research and get their take on how your research partnership might affect your grad school applications. They can offer insights into the admissions process and how much weight is placed on individual contributions. You could also discuss the possibility of working on separate research projects. Collaboration and teamwork are crucial, but don't forget to prioritize your own academic and career goals.
Having an open and honest conversation with your research partner is another approach. Share you concerns and express you expectations for the future. Communicate your perspective on the research and your plans for the upcoming Fall Semester. This could give them a chance to understand your viewpoint and possibly reevaluate their own commitments. Discuss and possibly establish what your expectations are for your research collaboration moving forward. Determine the level of involvement and contributions expected from each party. It's essential to have a mutual understanding of the responsibilities and time commitments required, especially considering your partner's full-time job and other obligations.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: These situations can be frustrating. Group projects (research collaboration included) never really change. Sometimes people just don't put in the effort and still expect to benefit. So on one hand, it is *not* cutthroat to fight for proper acknowledgement of your work. On the other hand, it is *very* cutthroat (and arguably rather unethical) to push someone off of a project without giving them a chance to contribute properly. So, while your concern about this other students *current* contributions (or lack thereof) is reasonable, it's not necessarily fair to push them out because you think they will be busy during the coming semester and it is almost certainly unethical to push them out solely to benefit your application.
The correct way to resolve this would be to **give this person a chance to remedy the situation** i.e., begin to contribute to a more reasonable level. If they still do not put in work then, and only then, should you considering having them removed.
In your case, I think you should talk to your professor. Express your concerns and see what they think. You mention your "pretty sure" your professor knows what's going on. So just have a conversation.
On a side note - it sounds like you are leading this research project. This can be really hard and the path of least resistance for inexperienced researchers is often to do everything yourself. This can lead to a situation similar to the one you are in. You do all the work and your research-mates seemingly do nothing. At some point (usually once people are independent researchers) this isn't an excuse. But undergraduate students almost always need specific tasks and instructions. Maybe you don't, but the average student does. So perhaps a solution is to just give your classmate tasks. If there is something that needs doing, ask him to do it rather than just doing it yourself. If he doesn't do the work, then you can go ahead and escalate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think that your instincts are correct, in that the other student is unlikely to change their ways. It's a sweet deal for them: you do all the work, they take vacations, give excuses (however reasonable), make promises (however heartfelt), and at the end, they get publication credit. Now they are making more promises, but once you accept the deal, you can count on them dropping the ball again. And why wouldn't they?
Two ways to solve the issue:
(1) Express to your friend that you'd like to have a sole-author publication, and that they suggest a way to split the project so that you work on your stuff and they work on theirs. They won't get anything done, but at least you won't feel the resentment that's currently eating at you.
(2) Set clear expectations, in writing, with clear milestones, and deadlines. Lots of small deadlines. They might realize that the gig is up and give up on the paper and let you get the sole authorship you want. Or they will start missing deadlines and with every deadline, you bring again Option #1, splitting the paper.
Whatever you do, you need to get out of the corner where your partner's *promises* of work result in publication credit.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/19
| 3,774
| 15,325
|
<issue_start>username_0: I help students in a lab for 10 hours a week then have to grade their labs every other week. Does anyone know what the norm is? Are they supposed to assign grading hours for you as well?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are hired as a TA for 10 hours a week, that includes all activities, unless your hire letter states something different.
That said, it would not be uncommon for the expectations of a TA load to exceed 10 hours a week. Is this right? No.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There are "contract hours", "contact hours" and "hours it takes to do the job". For example, your contract could specify that you are 0.5 time TA, so assuming a 40-hour week, that means that you are a "20-hour employee", or if it's 0.25 time, then a "10-hour employee" etc. But this is just accounting fantasy, as TA jobs are treated as salaried positions. What matters are the contact hours.
Contact hours are the hours which you are expected to be standing in front of the students during lab time. You are then expected to spend time prepping the lab (setting up reagents/specimens/etc.), prepping your presentation to the students (reading the manual, preparing notes, making a presentation), developing assessment materials (pre- or post-lab quizzes, lab exams, lab projects, lab report instructions), and then grading all of this. Your department might also require you to hold office hours for say, 2-3 hours a week.
This all depends on the norms of the institution and/or department, but as part of your TA duties, you might be expected to also attend the regular lectures taught by the professor (another 3 hours of your time a week), write the professor's lecture exams, and then grade those exams. When I was a grad student, I had to TA for a professor who pretty much abandoned the class to me: his only apparent job duty was to cash the checks. In another instance, a different professor wanted to control everything in the class and lab, and my job through the semester was to keep a chair warm. Most TA duties range between these two ends, even though the pay is the same.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience (UK), the hourly rate for contact hours is stated to include the expected additional time required for marking rather than the marking being paid on top of that. So, no, no additional money is paid for marking.
However, I would strongly suspect that this varies by country and likely even by institution within a country.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Most TA jobs are "contracted" 10-20 hours. But TA jobs are salaried, which means in reality, you get assigned what's "theoretically" 10 or 20 hours of work per week, and paid a fixed salary.
My experience and hearing others is that most TA positions take less than the contracted time most weeks, except the weeks when grading exams or big projects, they take a lot more. Also see: [What are the standard workloads for mathematics TAs at state and private universities in the US?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29580/what-are-the-standard-workloads-for-mathematics-tas-at-state-and-private-univers?rq=1)
Look at your TA contract or what your job position is: is it listed "0.25 FTE" (10 hours/week), "0.5 FTE" (20 hours/week), or something else? If it's 20 hours/week and you spend half the time in the lab and half the time grading, then that seems reasonable. But if you're only 10 hours/week and/or working considerably more than your assigned hours, that's an issue; whether or not it's common, it's wrong.
Unfortunately I have no idea how to address that, other than simply working faster and sloppier to make your actual hours match your contracted ones. At least, this seems to be what most TAs do, but it hurts the students...really this is a big problem at some universities, where the university itself and classes are overenrolled and TAs are overworked and underpaid. Others more familiar with this situation can probably give better advice, and I'm sure it will be specific to your country and university as well, because some are more receptive to graduate students and have stricter contract rules than others.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In Germany it seems to be the norm, that you are technically being underpaid (paid for 10hours/week but the workload is ~20hours per week) BUT your contract lasts the entire semester (6 months) where lectures are only 3 months of that. So you get the rest of the money for doing literally nothing. I assume this is likely done to keep your income below tax margins.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: To add another system, here's how my contracts mostly looked when I was at U of Toronto.
Each TA was allotted a flat # of hours per course, e.g. 60 or 100, from which our pay would be calculated. Then we would get an **hours allocation form**. The allocation was sometimes the result of consultation but was usually unilaterally determined by the instructor. Here's what it looked like:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/drSMF.jpg)
So there was some logic about how to allocate: 22 tutorials, 1 hour each = 22 hours makes sense. For 3 assignment markings, no time per task is given, but there are 36 hours so evidently 12 hours are supposedly needed to mark each assignment.
There was a column for revised hours "as applicable". I don't remember that column ever being used, but maybe other TAs asked about it. As others have noted, at the end of the day this is a reasonable guess, but the pay is not actually materially tied to how many hours each TA spends on each task. The reporting and verification of each individual's hours would be a much greater headache and cost than being wrong by a few hours here and there. (Besides, if I mark twice as fast, should I really get paid half as much?)
So the hourly rate is a bit of a fiction, but I'm sure they occasionally revised these estimates to get them more or less right on average.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: They should although exactly how this number of hours is computed is black magic. To list some of the variables:
1. Are you provided with a solution key or do you have to make your own?
2. Are all assignments the same length/difficulty or is this variable?
3. Is it a large or small class?
As a result it’s unlikely that the number of hours you devote to this will be *exactly* reflected in the number of hours assigned by the administration. In other words, the number of hours in your contract is an estimate, sometimes higher sometimes lower, than the actual number of hours you will actually devoted to the task.
Moreover in some cases the time allotted for preparation and marking is just a multiple of the number of actual contact hours, irrespective of the items above, recognized either directly or via a higher hourly pay.
So: this is definitely variable although *some* recognition of the time and effort spend outside of contact hours should be given.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: This is going to be *highly* dependent upon what country or state you are in, what kind of institution you are studying at, what department you are in, and a whole host of other details. However, the most important thing is **read your contract.**
When you agreed to be a TA, you should have signed a contract which outlined your duties. For some perspective, my own experiences as a TA are outlined below.
I completed my masters degree at the University of Nevada, Reno. During my time there, I was employed as a TA, where I was a half-time employee. My contract specified that I would
* teach a certain number of hours every week (typically 4–5 recitation sections which totaled 4–5 hours per week, or a lecture section for 3 hours per week, plus one or two recitations for some other class),
* hold office hours (1 hour for every 3 contact hours, so another 2–3 hours per week),
* grade coursework,
* prepare lecture material,
* meet with lead instructors,
* help to proctor exams (if relevant), and
* perform "other duties, as assigned".
Half-time employees are expected to work approximately 20 hours per week. The expectation is that your time with students (contact hours in recitation or lecture, plus office hours) would constitute something like 8–10 hours per week, and that the remaining 10–12 hours of contracted time would be spent performing the other listed duties. However, this was a salaried position—I was paid per semester, not per hour. I was expected to perform my duties, and the institution didn't really care how much time I spent on it (aside from the contact hours and student hours).
I did my doctoral work at University of California Riverside. Unlike Nevada (which is a right-to-work state, which means that you can be fired at any time for any reason), California has fairly strong labor protection laws, and the graduate student union in the UC system was strong. My basic contract was very similar, and stipulated that I would
* teach recitation sections (TAs at UCR did not independently teach classes),
* hold office hours,
* grade coursework, and
* perform other duties as assigned.
Again, this was a salaried position, and the expectation was that I would (a) work 20 hours per week, and (b) get all of my work done. However, again, the union was strong, and encouraged TAs to keep timesheets as a defense against exploitation. If our duties consistently exceeded 20 hours per week, the union would help mediate discussions with the departmental chair and lead instructors. So the contract was very similar, but there was a cap on the numbers of hours I could be required to work, and enforcement was a little different.
**TL;DR:** You should have a contract. Read that contract, and ask your department chair (or union rep, if you have one) about anything that isn't clear to you. That contract *probably* stipulates that you are expected to complete certain tasks, rather than work a certain number of hours per week. Grading is almost certainly one of those tasks.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: In Australia, NTEU (the union) has repeatedly won large amounts of back pay for union members. Universities were caught engaging wage theft. Very often this theft was failing to pay staff for time spent marking/grading.
In Australia, almost all staff who are marking/grading must be paid. Union contracts cover almost all universities and TAs are covered by the contracts.
<https://www.nteu.au/News_Articles/National/Wage_Theft_Report.aspx>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Converting what was starting to become a long comment into an even longer answer.
This seems not only country-dependent, but even within the same country it seems to be organisation-dependent. E.g. people here seem to suggest that a TA is a "salaried" position (which I understand to mean you will get paid some sort of standard salary regardless of the nature of the work or the odd missed session). I'm assuming they must be speaking from a US perspective. This is not my experience from the UK. And compared to another answer here, my experience seems different from another colleague's experience in the UK in a different institution. So, take all advice here with a grain of salt.
To relay my own experience from hiring TAs (or GLAs: Graduate Lab Assistants) in my own institution: I had to specify in my request form whether the TAs required "preparation time" and/or "marking time" on top of "lab time", and how many hours would be required for each component per TA (remunerated at a standard rate dictated by the university), and how many TAs would be required for me to teach the module and why. (typically the expectation is that you will hire one GLA for every extra 30 students after your first 30 in the class).
Then the TAs would perform this work, but would have to get a signature after each lab to confirm they performed the work, so that that they could be remunerated for *that* session appropriately (meaning if they missed a session they would not get paid).
Also, in terms of the above, when proposing to hire GLAs, I had to make sure that my request was "reasonable" from a financial point of view; if deemed as "unreasonable" by the finance department, it may be "adjusted" or rejected outright. This partly means that some lecturers might opt for the "suboptimal" solution of making preparation/marking time implied and not actually formally remunerated. In theory this is not illegal as long as the TA understands and agrees to the nature of the job. Though in practice this naturally risks your TAs not preparing and doing suboptimal work during the labs (in practice there is also always the chance that this is the case regardless of preparation payment, however...), or similarly, spending a bare minimum of time on marking, meaning you'll probably be asked to remark most of those assignments due to odd marks / low quality feedback anyway... (again though, this may happen regardless of payment).
Finally, it's worth distinguishing between TAs as Lab assistants, vs actual "Teaching" assistants (GTAs), vs "Fixed (short) term Teachers". My understanding is that GTAs have significantly more duties than GLAs and help out also with lectures and preparing the module, and thus get paid more (in terms of a base hourly rate), but are still not salaried. Fixed-Term teachers on the other hand are salaried, but for a short period of time, to help out with a specific module; the expected contribution may be the same as that of a GTA, bit more, or to more or less take charge of the module outright.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: >
> Are TAs supposed to get paid for hours it takes to grade?
>
>
>
Yes, they are. Grading is time you spend doing work for your employer, and that's what workers get paid for.
However - that does not mean all universities actually pay for this work: Many universities, especially where the academic staff is non-unionized, often try to under-count the amount of work done by non-full-time, non-tenured staff. A common custom is only counting hours spent in a classroom or in the lab and ignoring everything else, or using a unrealistic estimate of the extra work time.
Another relatively common practice is using abstract figuring of extra pay for out-of-class work without even trying to estimate time. For example: You get 1 gold coin per month for each class hour taught, and 0.05 gold coins for every student in your class. Obviously, this reflects the fact that there is extra work per student, but not explicitly, and it is more difficult to claim that the 0.05 is insufficient, or that it should vary in some way between courses because, say, the amount of time to grade an assignment is different or there is a different number of lab/homework assignments.
>
> Does anyone know what the norm is?
>
>
>
Well, management knows; but your **academic staff union** (all-staff, just adjuncts/temporaries, whatever) should know. The fact that you asked us rather than them means they are either weak, or non-existent - and that's something you should consider helping to rectify.
---
Further reading: [Graduate student employee unionization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_student_employee_unionization) on Wikipedia.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/19
| 1,000
| 4,136
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently had an interview with a professor regarding a PhD opening in their research group, for which I applied and successfully interviewed. The professor has offered me the opportunity to pursue a PhD at their university, which is located in the USA. While the university is excellent, I have always had a personal goal to attend a university ranked in the top 100, and eventually progress to a top 20 or even higher-ranking institution. However, since a PhD will be the final degree in my academic career, I am keen to have an affiliation with a prestigious university such as Caltech, MIT, Stanford, and others.
My question is how I can approach the professor to inquire about the possibility of funding for a master's degree only. I want to clarify that my interest in pursuing a master's degree elsewhere is not due to any concerns about the research quality or the professor's group. In fact, I greatly admire their work. My main concern is fulfilling my aspiration of being affiliated with a highly ranked university.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think that this would be received well (but I also don't think anyone will take it personally). Just be prepared to either have the professor say no or even rescind the offer altogether. Masters are usually not funded, at least not fully. Why would a PI waste funding on someone who will only be around for 1-2 years and will never really do work on the level of a PhD candidate? On top of that, PhD funding is often specifically earmarked - it isn't a free pool of money. I guess if you really don't want to be at a particular university it doesn't hurt to ask since you don't lose anything (other than a guaranteed funded PhD).
So on some level, you have to do whatever you want. If your goal is "go to a top 100 (or top 20) university", shoot your shot. I personally think that rankings are crap and almost always very biased, but that's not really relevant here.
I would caution you about chasing names and prestige in general though. By all means try to go to the best, "highest ranked" university you can. But be aware that many "mid-tier" university are, practically, just as good as the best. There are obviously advantages to having a brand-name degree, but if the program you are considering is solid and fits well then it will probably allow you to get where you want to go. I doubt you will advance that far on degree name alone - you still need to do good work.
That being said, I think the most important consideration is your situation. Do you have any offers from better universities? Do you think you have a realistic shot at a "top tier" university? Why bother to do a master's at this university at all? Why do you feel that you *need* to go to a highly ranked school?
Your answer to those questions might help you make a decision. You have an offer from a university you describe as excellent with an advisor you "greatly admire". In my experience it is very easy to get greedy when you have a "safe" option in hand. Basically just be realistic.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Preliminary comment: Thinking in terms of ranking is usually not a good idea. You should think of the best place you can be for *your specific area of interest*. That may be the best groups in a field and yes, they may be at a top-ranked university, but then again, they may be further down that ranking list. Just generically aiming for high-ranked places is not going to advance your career unless you can be motivated by prestige only and you do not care what you do.
Now to your main question: can you ask for MSc studentship only? You can ask, but it is not a good move. If you get offered a PhD and downgrade your acceptance to a MSc, it shows limited committment and interest on your side (and correctly so, given your thinking in terms of ranking), and it's a waste of time by the prof to educate you in a field, only to see you leave.
In fact, many profs would like to upgrade some of their MSc students to PhDs when they are good. The opposite direction is not attractive unless the student is weak.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/07/19
| 1,358
| 5,660
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had applied to Florida State University, among other schools for a PhD math for fall 2023 and the application is still showing "under review". Recently I finished a 5-week summer research program and I updated their grad admissions office about the work I did there. I received the following response:
"Thank you for your application to FSU Math. I have added this material to your application. We have no funding remaining at this time, do you want to be considered for a non-funded offer of admission?"
I have no idea whether an unfunded PhD is even possible. I have the following questions regarding this and I would like to respond as soon as possible.
1. Is it a good idea to accept an unfunded PhD offer in Math? (Most answers here advise against it). I do not have much savings, so I'd be relying on part time jobs or a student loan.
2. Is it still possible that they might receive more funding in the near future?
3. Would it be unethical to accept this possible unfunded offer and look for a funded offer elsewhere again next fall?
4. Does Florida allow student visa holders to find employment outside of the university and does it restrict the number of hours of employment?
Even though my interests have shifted slightly after my summer program, I still might end up applying here again for the next admission cycle, so I do not wish to leave a bad impression by agreeing now and declining an offer later.<issue_comment>username_1: 1. It's a bad idea on principle, let alone financially. Taking loans just compounds the bad idea.
2. Departments work with annual budgets, so the only possibility for short-term funding would be another student quitting. If you prove to be a really good student, the department might then give you the funding they had budgeted for a prospective student the following year. But don't count on it. They might as well think that if you put up with it for one year, you'll probably put up with it for another year.
3. It's both ethical and a good idea to look for other programs, if you were to accept the non-funded position.
4. Issues of student visas and work are ruled by federal law, not state law. You can only legally work within the university. Off-the-books jobs run aplenty in Florida, but these require a strong back. After doing one of these jobs for a week, you'll never utter the phrase "hard work" referring to academic employment.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I suspect that you can do better elsewhere and should explore that. If they will cover your tuition and fees, along with providing healthcare it might not be a terrible option, providing you can cover your own living expenses.
But, in math, an unfunded doctorate is pretty rare, I'd guess, since universities need a lot of TAs to manage the undergraduate program.
Almost all of the alternatives (jobs, loans, etc) are very unattractive. They will negatively impact you now and/or in the future. Even waiting a year seems preferable to any of those options; especially if you are on a visa. Working "off the books" is especially risky as you could be sent home at any moment.
First option: look elsewhere. Second option (perhaps): wait.
It is a bit risky, by my personal temptation would be to tell them no, you need the funding. But it is your risk, not mine.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Offer of admission to mathematics PhD program but without funding, for international student, is practically equivalent to rejection, unless you have so much money that you can fund their graduate program yourself.
Math PhD is highly stressful. You need to pass those qualifying exams within 2 years, find an advisor, find a problem (your advisor might turn out an idiot and you are then on your own), solve it (you are on your own), and publish 1-2 papers (unless you do algebraic geometry or similar stuff where publication before graduation is 'not the norm'.
Plus, tuition fees for unfunded foreigners are astronomical figures in USA, and even take home salary of full time math postdocs are barely enough to pay the tuition fees and just survive. In particular, legal part time jobs will take you nowhere close financially, but will add to the stress.
All these go against 'unfunded admission'. There is a hypothetical positive. Most of the times, faculty members who do good research (even in pure math) have lots of unused grant money that they sometimes agree to spend on a student if they think it is a good idea to invest on the particular student. For this, you need to do sufficiently well in your first year of studies (at least) and have them take notice of you (by having/adding some spark in your profile).
As stated, this is not an obvious take away. There are lots of ifs. You should have sufficient fund to survive one year on your own, and do very well in studies, and the dept. had at least one good professor (with lots of grant money) who is a good human being too. However, note that you don't know what is the actual evaluation of your application by the admission committee there which prompted them to not offer funding (assuming admission is offered). And if they put some negative evaluation on your file but still offer (unfunded) admission --- and trust me, this happens and student will never rationally find out, that will ensure that you won't get funding from professor's grant (except in very very rare case).
I would suggest you to look for options in EU universities. There, the profs mostly hire students directly to work on some specific project of theirs, and as a result, admission decisions are less bureaucratic.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/19
| 1,235
| 5,109
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just had a paper accepted for publication in an Elsevier journal. It is to be published open access, so the journal has a sizeable open-access publication fee (or "APC") ~$2000.
I've sought financial support for these fees from external entities (waiting to hear back confirmations), but I'm not sure how invoicing/charging of APCs ultimately works.
What's the most typical way I enable 3rd party entities to help financially support me?
1. Do I simply pay the APC myself and seek reimbursement from these funders (perhaps both internal and external to my employing institution)? Or is there some way to pay the publisher from multiple sources?
2. Is it more appropriate / normal to send the invoice to myself or to my institution?
Any suggestion would be appreciated as this is [surprisingly] the first time I ever actually had to pay a fee of any kind to publish!<issue_comment>username_1: 1. It's a bad idea on principle, let alone financially. Taking loans just compounds the bad idea.
2. Departments work with annual budgets, so the only possibility for short-term funding would be another student quitting. If you prove to be a really good student, the department might then give you the funding they had budgeted for a prospective student the following year. But don't count on it. They might as well think that if you put up with it for one year, you'll probably put up with it for another year.
3. It's both ethical and a good idea to look for other programs, if you were to accept the non-funded position.
4. Issues of student visas and work are ruled by federal law, not state law. You can only legally work within the university. Off-the-books jobs run aplenty in Florida, but these require a strong back. After doing one of these jobs for a week, you'll never utter the phrase "hard work" referring to academic employment.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I suspect that you can do better elsewhere and should explore that. If they will cover your tuition and fees, along with providing healthcare it might not be a terrible option, providing you can cover your own living expenses.
But, in math, an unfunded doctorate is pretty rare, I'd guess, since universities need a lot of TAs to manage the undergraduate program.
Almost all of the alternatives (jobs, loans, etc) are very unattractive. They will negatively impact you now and/or in the future. Even waiting a year seems preferable to any of those options; especially if you are on a visa. Working "off the books" is especially risky as you could be sent home at any moment.
First option: look elsewhere. Second option (perhaps): wait.
It is a bit risky, by my personal temptation would be to tell them no, you need the funding. But it is your risk, not mine.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Offer of admission to mathematics PhD program but without funding, for international student, is practically equivalent to rejection, unless you have so much money that you can fund their graduate program yourself.
Math PhD is highly stressful. You need to pass those qualifying exams within 2 years, find an advisor, find a problem (your advisor might turn out an idiot and you are then on your own), solve it (you are on your own), and publish 1-2 papers (unless you do algebraic geometry or similar stuff where publication before graduation is 'not the norm'.
Plus, tuition fees for unfunded foreigners are astronomical figures in USA, and even take home salary of full time math postdocs are barely enough to pay the tuition fees and just survive. In particular, legal part time jobs will take you nowhere close financially, but will add to the stress.
All these go against 'unfunded admission'. There is a hypothetical positive. Most of the times, faculty members who do good research (even in pure math) have lots of unused grant money that they sometimes agree to spend on a student if they think it is a good idea to invest on the particular student. For this, you need to do sufficiently well in your first year of studies (at least) and have them take notice of you (by having/adding some spark in your profile).
As stated, this is not an obvious take away. There are lots of ifs. You should have sufficient fund to survive one year on your own, and do very well in studies, and the dept. had at least one good professor (with lots of grant money) who is a good human being too. However, note that you don't know what is the actual evaluation of your application by the admission committee there which prompted them to not offer funding (assuming admission is offered). And if they put some negative evaluation on your file but still offer (unfunded) admission --- and trust me, this happens and student will never rationally find out, that will ensure that you won't get funding from professor's grant (except in very very rare case).
I would suggest you to look for options in EU universities. There, the profs mostly hire students directly to work on some specific project of theirs, and as a result, admission decisions are less bureaucratic.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/07/19
| 1,412
| 5,281
|
<issue_start>username_0: TLDR: zero interest in the topic, bad relationships with supervisors and colleagues, I think I'm not suitable for this, thus, I must leave.
Hello all, I would like to ask for some advice from people out there, since I am not getting good feedback from people here.
So I'm an international student, 1.5 years into a 3-year PhD in a field *I thought* was related to my MSc. I work closely with my co-supervisor, who has an "extremely efficient" mindset: you get it or you don't. So, if I ask for feedback, he becomes frustrated and pissed because I don't understand what he wants or I am wasting his time (according to him, I "waste his time with useless questions"). So, I avoid talking to him and try to be as independent as possible. My main supervisor is god-like: famous, none present, sarcastic, and what he says must be done.
Since 8 months ago, I've been thinking about quitting the PhD. I decided to give it a try since, apparently, it's a very normal thought and there are good perks: I got an excellent fully-funded scholarship, got to work with a very famous professor, attended two conferences with full papers already (going to another next month), and I am working on my first journal.
Still, I noticed that my motivation just reached near zero. Simply put, I don't like the research topic and the lab environment. Regarding the research, it is completely different from what I imagined: I find it boring, old, and completely useless for me since I know I will not do any of this in the future. Besides, honestly, I don't want to pursue an academic career. Regarding the environment, I can tell that everybody gets along, however, I am kind of the weirdo no one talks to (I am kind of a hippie, whereas the rest are all very serious guys).
Yes, maybe I am isolating myself from the rest. But the thing is, I feel everyone is brainwashed by the supervisors: my fellow PhDs tell me I should do everything they say and shut up. Unfortunately, I am the kind of guy that disagrees easily and criticizes everything, and I can tell they don't like that (my colleagues and my supervisors). The reason I disagree though is that I just don't like the way things work: it's old and the famous supervisor wants it to be that way. My co-supervisor once told me "Stop doing wonderful things, this is not the way things work here." And that destroyed me.
Honestly, since I don't care about this topic, I am not willing to do whatever it takes to please these supervisors and relate to people who support them.
Right now, I sustain myself working on side projects. Recently, some friends from another lab (kind of hippies like me) that are doing things I really (really!) enjoy told me "Man, you are very good at what we do, you should be here instead of there." That wasn't funny to me.
So, a solution is quitting the PhD. BUT, there is still a very big problem, and probably what scares me to death: this PhD involves a lot of people from many prestigious universities and famous researchers. So, quitting is not just leaving my lab, but also the entire project. Quitting is killing, entirely, my academic career.
Have you or someone close to you ever faced something like this? What have they done? Maybe I am a crybaby?
Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: >
> there is still a very big problem, ... Quitting is killing, entirely, my academic career.
>
>
>
>
> I don't want to pursue an academic career.
>
>
>
It seems that your "big problem" is actually your goal and you can achieve it by quitting.
Also, prestige and fame of your colleagues matters little to you in the long term and would not stop you from getting a PhD somewhere else at a later date.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: PhD goes beyond staying put in academia.
The process shapes lot of things in how the person thinks/reasons/acts in later life (well, ideally). This is often underated and undervalued.
>
> ... *solution is quitting the PhD*
>
> ... *universities and famous researchers. So, quitting is not just leaving my lab, but also the entire project*
>
> ... *Quitting is killing, entirely, my academic career*
>
> ... *"Stop doing wonderful things, this is not the way things work here." And that destroyed me*
>
> ... *I don't care about this topic*
>
> ... *I am not willing to do whatever it takes to please these supervisors*
>
>
>
So many ***variables***.
Perhaps, what you need is a reflective ***problem statement*** approach.
Regarding *quitting*, just before you quit, or *move to the other lab*, you might also want to consider a *resilient* mode (which might require well-being program support).
* 2 conference outputs, practically ***3*** outputs
* 1 journal manuscript lurking around
* halfway through
* one can forecast possibility of 2 journal outputs before or just at the onset of the writing up stage
* move on to write up. Be done and dusted with.
* move on to the next thing in life.
Alongside the resilient mode, you'll have to
* shift from easily disagreeing and criticizes everything. Learn to consider (rationale for) other views and engage open-minded without *ass-licking*
* have that difficult (personality and research approach) conversation with your supervisors, respectfully so.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/07/20
| 588
| 2,662
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a newcomer to research I'd like to ask a question about submitting papers to conferences. My supervisor has been telling me before that my project can be submitted to the top conference and she's always been super confident, but in a recent meeting she suddenly told me that the top conference paper requires a specific setup for study and it would be too late to finish everything before the deadline. My supervisor is very nice and helped me a lot with my writing and project but idk why she never told me about this before. Before she said if the review of the top conference isn't great I can still submit to conference B.
Now she said I can submit for conference B, which is also great but of course it's not the top, plus the submission will be in early next year (and my work is kind of time-sensitive). She said that I can use the upcoming months to polish the paper and make a better prototype etc. She also proposed another idea to submit to another conference, which might be easier to get accepted.
My idea is that it's true that I don’t have a lot of time left to submit the top conference, but if I work harder and finish everything early I still got chances. It's my first submission and I really hope to get some advice on what I should do and how I should deal with this with my supervisor. Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming that her advice about conference requirements is correct, I think you are getting good advice and should follow it. You don't need to start at the top to get there. Submitting to a more appropriate conference will likely provide a better result all around, including the fact that you may not be quite ready for prime time.
It is also, generally speaking, a mistake to fight with your advisor.
This isn't your last chance for success, only the start of the process. Your supervisor seems both supporting and giving good advice. It is probably your best option to follow it.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Adding to what @username_1 wrote (which I fully endorse): don't chase the idea of submissions at top conferences too much. Depending on the size of such conferences, your work will not gain a lot of exposure. Smaller, more thematically focused venues can be great to start building your research portfolio and meet like-minded people.
In particular for your first submission, it can be very dissuading to receive negative reviews; your adviser seems to know the field and appears to be looking out for you. If they are suggesting a better suitable venue, I'd heed their advice.
Good luck with this and any future submissions!
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/07/20
| 675
| 3,017
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm new to this. I've written research papers before, but never one about a computer-science topic. So, I was wondering how exactly I should approach the methods and results section, as it seems more natural to simply do it all in one section, explaining how I did what I did and what I found for each step of my research. I'd appreciate some advice!<issue_comment>username_1: Some fields, specifically math and CS, aren't like others and so it is natural to structure research result papers differently.
But the methods section should say something about how your program/system architecture differs from the standard techniques applied to your problem. The results section should show how your results are an improvement (or not) over the standard. Even if you don't show an improvement, you can give an analysis of how the new technique fails and still contribute to the literature. Negative knowledge is still knowledge, though you haven't indicated that is the case here.
And note that even small improvements can be important if the means to that end are novel and can influence future research.
But, assuming you have advanced the art say both how and why in the results, and maybe the conclusions, section.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, how to organize the sections for a computer science paper depends a lot on the conference or journal that you're sending it to.
With "computer science native" organizations like IEEE and ACM, there is typically free choice allowed for section titles, and thus no need to use a "methods/results" format. I'll thus often end up with section titles like "Architecture", "Analysis", and "Experimental Validation", organizing things however I think will be clearest for a reader. This is what I recommend doing whenever possible.
Unfortunately, many "non-native" journals, such as those with biology or chemistry roots, will force you to map your paper onto a [Procrustean bed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes) of "Methods/Results/Discussion" or even putting the Results first and the Methods last. This can be really problematic if you view an architecture or algorithm as a method, because then you'd be presenting experiments with the algorithm before you presented the algorithm!
In this case, it helps to realize that in computer science the *development* of a "method" like an architecture or algorithm is itself a result! I thus tend to deal with the "methods/results" format by using the same structure as I would in a computer science paper, but turning all the sections besides Introduction and Discussion be subsections of "Results". The "Methods" section is then reserved only for the not-very-interesting details somebody will only need to know if they are trying to reproduce identical experimental results. For an example of doing this, see [this recent paper of mine on a software tool for biology](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.31.505873v1.full).
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/20
| 682
| 3,039
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a high school student who has recently established a few theorems regarding geodesic convexity in metric spaces. Most of the proofs are accessible to undergraduate students. I don’t want to publish in “top” journals, nor do I think my paper would be accepted for that matter. What are some quality journals aimed at undergraduate math I should consider publishing in?<issue_comment>username_1: Some fields, specifically math and CS, aren't like others and so it is natural to structure research result papers differently.
But the methods section should say something about how your program/system architecture differs from the standard techniques applied to your problem. The results section should show how your results are an improvement (or not) over the standard. Even if you don't show an improvement, you can give an analysis of how the new technique fails and still contribute to the literature. Negative knowledge is still knowledge, though you haven't indicated that is the case here.
And note that even small improvements can be important if the means to that end are novel and can influence future research.
But, assuming you have advanced the art say both how and why in the results, and maybe the conclusions, section.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, how to organize the sections for a computer science paper depends a lot on the conference or journal that you're sending it to.
With "computer science native" organizations like IEEE and ACM, there is typically free choice allowed for section titles, and thus no need to use a "methods/results" format. I'll thus often end up with section titles like "Architecture", "Analysis", and "Experimental Validation", organizing things however I think will be clearest for a reader. This is what I recommend doing whenever possible.
Unfortunately, many "non-native" journals, such as those with biology or chemistry roots, will force you to map your paper onto a [Procrustean bed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes) of "Methods/Results/Discussion" or even putting the Results first and the Methods last. This can be really problematic if you view an architecture or algorithm as a method, because then you'd be presenting experiments with the algorithm before you presented the algorithm!
In this case, it helps to realize that in computer science the *development* of a "method" like an architecture or algorithm is itself a result! I thus tend to deal with the "methods/results" format by using the same structure as I would in a computer science paper, but turning all the sections besides Introduction and Discussion be subsections of "Results". The "Methods" section is then reserved only for the not-very-interesting details somebody will only need to know if they are trying to reproduce identical experimental results. For an example of doing this, see [this recent paper of mine on a software tool for biology](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.31.505873v1.full).
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2023/07/20
| 1,652
| 7,413
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently in the final semester of my engineering bachelors degree.
Right now I'm working in a lab with the former supervisor of my bachelor thesis which I successfully defended in late march.
My advisor encouraged me to work towards turning it into a conference paper and for the last three months I have been doing that and achieved decent progress. we agreed that I will get to be first author while my advisor is second and another PhD student who also helps is third.
Now overall the work has been enjoyable but the problem is that the sheer amount of work still needed to complete the project feels to much for me to handle at this point.
The scope (which was mostly outlined by my advisor) is quite big and many tasks end up taking a lot longer than I (maybe naively) initially thought they would.
Furthermore while my co-authors obviously advise me and help me out with certain tasks that I can't do I am still the one who does probably 80% of the actual work including the writing (in my thesis I was also quite independent compared to other students according to my supervisor).
I am talking to my co-authors about this of course and trying to distribute the workload but ultimately they have their own projects that have a higher priority and neither of them are prepared to really take over whole subtasks in the foreseeable future.
I do not want to strain my relationship with them and they are both decent people and supportive mentors but at the same time I also feel like they are getting their co-authorships a little too 'cheap'. Then again this publication is much more useful for me than them so I don't have much I can do except ask nicely (I think).
All in all this means that even if I further increase my workload (which due to other commitments would become quite unhealthy for me) I am still looking at probably two months of work before we can submit a first draft. My advisor recently suggested me to push back the finish date and take more vacations now (he does care about me after all) but I'm also not entirely happy with that option. I'm starting my masters in late october and will have to take a regular courseload again then. Furthermore I want to get some tangible result sooner rather than later and at some point move on.
So the core problem is that the work is more than I can and want to do no matter if it is compressed into little time or stretched over a long time. I'm paid little and don't get credits for this so at some point the opportunity cost is just too high.
For the future I see the following options right now:
1. Get my co-authors more involved and finish the full project on time.
My favourite option but probably not realistic (due to the reasons above).
2. Reduce the scope of the project to the point that I can finish in a reasonable time. The issue is that the hypothesis relies on testing a full system where removing some of its components compromises the usefulness of the results.
3. Having me finish off the project as research internship in my masters.
This would solve the lack of time problem in the coming semester as I will have to do a research internship anyways. However I originally wanted to explore a new topic and department in that internship instead of putting even more time into the current one.
4. Find another co-author to help me.
I would be totally open to collaborating with another person on this in exchange for co-authorship and in fact it might be quite enjoyable to work together. The big issue is though that the PhD students are all tied up in their own stuff while finding a fellow undergraduate who is motivated and competent might be impossible in the timespan of 1-2 months.
5. Leave the project (perhaps not immediately) and hope someone else finishes it.
I definitely do not want to do this but of course this still could happen at some point. Either I would have to completely write off the past few months or I could hope to still get some form of official recognition of all my work if someone ends up publishing something off of this eventually.
Right now I'm not sure what to do and I would appreciate some advice but also encouragement very much. I do realize that I'm ultimately responsible for the whole situation and that I should have probably figured out and clarified most of this sooner.
In hindsight I was quite naive going into the project and too excited by the idea of publishing to critically think through it properly.
Now, however, it is what it is and I want to make the best of the situation.
I would be especially interested in advice on how to turn the project into less of an all-or-nothing situation so that I'm not left without a tangible result if the publication fails for whatever reason.<issue_comment>username_1: Some fields, specifically math and CS, aren't like others and so it is natural to structure research result papers differently.
But the methods section should say something about how your program/system architecture differs from the standard techniques applied to your problem. The results section should show how your results are an improvement (or not) over the standard. Even if you don't show an improvement, you can give an analysis of how the new technique fails and still contribute to the literature. Negative knowledge is still knowledge, though you haven't indicated that is the case here.
And note that even small improvements can be important if the means to that end are novel and can influence future research.
But, assuming you have advanced the art say both how and why in the results, and maybe the conclusions, section.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, how to organize the sections for a computer science paper depends a lot on the conference or journal that you're sending it to.
With "computer science native" organizations like IEEE and ACM, there is typically free choice allowed for section titles, and thus no need to use a "methods/results" format. I'll thus often end up with section titles like "Architecture", "Analysis", and "Experimental Validation", organizing things however I think will be clearest for a reader. This is what I recommend doing whenever possible.
Unfortunately, many "non-native" journals, such as those with biology or chemistry roots, will force you to map your paper onto a [Procrustean bed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes) of "Methods/Results/Discussion" or even putting the Results first and the Methods last. This can be really problematic if you view an architecture or algorithm as a method, because then you'd be presenting experiments with the algorithm before you presented the algorithm!
In this case, it helps to realize that in computer science the *development* of a "method" like an architecture or algorithm is itself a result! I thus tend to deal with the "methods/results" format by using the same structure as I would in a computer science paper, but turning all the sections besides Introduction and Discussion be subsections of "Results". The "Methods" section is then reserved only for the not-very-interesting details somebody will only need to know if they are trying to reproduce identical experimental results. For an example of doing this, see [this recent paper of mine on a software tool for biology](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.31.505873v1.full).
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|