date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2012/07/17 | 1,350 | 5,718 | <issue_start>username_0: Once you have a faculty job, how do you ask for a raise (beyond a yearly university-wide cost of living increase)? Is there any way to negotiate, short of soliciting outside offers? What should someone do if they are not willing to uproot their lives and move to a different city?<issue_comment>username_1: In the UK everyone receives a university-wide cost of living increase. If you meet or exceed expectations, you also get a raise. Generally one point on the pay scale for meeting expectations and two or three points for exceeding expectations. It is rare not to meet expectations. There is a little politicking involved in being assessed as exceeding expectations.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your goal whenever you ask for a raise (inside or outside of academia) should be to **convince your boss of your value to the company**. (It's highly recommended not to start with a phrase like "I need more money.") Much general [advice](http://www.wikihow.com/Ask-for-a-Pay-Raise) on asking for a raise, applies well within academia.
Obviously you should be consistently meeting expectations. Additionally, most administrations (both at the department level and the college or university level) have **favorite goals or pet projects**. Many such folks drool over the word "interdisciplinary"; perhaps at a liberal arts school this list of hot topics might include "undergraduate research". At my school, we have a strategic vision, with 5 goals. Whenever you can **present your accomplishments as fitting into one or more of these goals, they are viewed more favorably**.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: *This is quite possibly both US and CS-centric.*
Negotiating raises as an academic is rather tricky. You don't have the same kind of leverage that you have in industry unless you are actually willing to go out there and acquire another offer. In fact, the only times I've heard of faculty getting non-scheduled raises (i.e tenure, or when everyone gets a raise) is by
* Threatening to leave
* Participating in senior administration work and negotiating a deal before signing on.
Having said that, you might be able to increase the raise you get relative to others when there's a general raise if you can argue that you're underpaid relative to your peer group, or have done exceptional quality work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Short of making a credible threat to quit and go to a competing University, I don't think you can negotiate a meaningful salary raise based on excellence or need, at least in engineering schools. You have to demonstrate that you are adding value which is beyond what you are supposed to do for your own research/teaching program.
For example, you could try finding an activity that is aligned with your research interests but even more beneficial to the University. Then go to your Dean and propose doing that in return for more salary or a bonus. It has to be something that benefits the University as a whole rather than you. Examples are: offer to start an industrial affiliates program, and negotiate xK a year for each 25K a year affiliate that you bring in; start a corporate certificate summer program and ask for a large fee to organize and charge it; offer to start a partnership with a foreign University, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: **Pay rises in the Australian context**
In Australia, many universities have a system of increments and levels:
* Level A: Associate lecturer / research assistant
* Level B: Lecturer
* Level C: Senior Lecturer
* Level D: Associate Professor
* Level E: Professor
See this example from [University of Melbourne HR with pay information](http://policy.unimelb.edu.au/UOM0115#section-1.1.1.1).
Within each level there are multiple increments. You will tend to get an increment each year for reasonable performance. For exceptional performance, you might get a double increment.
However, moving up a level is considered a promotion and is not automatic. Thus, you might sit at the top of a level for a while if your service, teaching, and research does not meet the requirements of a higher level. Promotions at early levels are generally handled at departmental or school levels. As you go up, promotions are progressively more likely to require department, faculty, and university support and review.
Thus, if you want to earn more in the Australian context, you may have to work out a way of meeting the requirements for promotion. Your university should have detailed information about how this occurs (see for example the [University of Melbourne example](http://www.hr.unimelb.edu.au/careers/development/academic/promotions)).
While there are extensive guidelines for what is required for a promotion, there is still presumably some scope for how they are applied. Thus, it helps if you have the support of key decision makers who will be involved in approving your promotion.
### Some other examples
* I have heard of cases where an academic has been given a job offer at another institution and has used this to leverage a promotion at their current institution.
* Likewise, changing institutions is one way of getting a pay rise. E.g., I've seen many examples of people changing universities in order to move from associate professor to professor.
* Some departments have special bonus schemes which permit you to earn additional money for publishing, etc.
* Some departments are more tolerant of external paid consulting work.
* There are some exceptions to the standard context where salaries are negotiated a bit more.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: In academia, sometimes a mere interview at a better department can get you a raise.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/07/17 | 2,778 | 12,072 | <issue_start>username_0: I've heard of people transferring between graduate schools because of their advisor moving to another school and taking their students with them.
Do students ever transfer for other reasons? If a student isn't happy at the school they choose, could transferring be an option? Presumably they would frame it as something positive such as "turns out I really want to work with Professor X" rather than "I hate my school", but does this ever happen? Is there a certain timeframe in which this is possible? (Assume it's a 5 year PhD program.)
If the answer varies by subject please mention the subject in your answer.
(Context: many friends have told me that if it turns out I'm not happy with my choice, I can always transfer. My impression is that this is actually difficult since many schools don't accept transfer students and in any case not being able to stick with a program looks bad -- but I don't have evidence either way so wanted to ask people who are in academia. Of course the ideal would be to pick a school one is happy with in the first place!)<issue_comment>username_1: Field: **Mathematics**.
Transferring is possible although you might have to 'start over' at your new university. For example, perhaps you have completed the first year sequence of courses in University A and passed some prelims before transferring to University B. At University B you might either be required to go through their first year sequence, or take (and pass) the relevant prelims to have the courses waived. This can be difficult since first year courses and topic and prelims tend to vary across departments. In addition, depending on how much prior experience you have before coming to University B, they might require you to finish your degree in less than usual time (say, 3-4 years instead of 5). In particular, folks with Masters degrees applying to PhD programs are often required to get a second Masters in their second university.
Source: A friend of mine transferred from Rice Mathematics to UW Madison Mathematics; additionally this was a topic of conversation at a Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics where a breakout session leader had transferred universities mid-PhD.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: **Computer username_9**
It's not uncommon for a student to transfer, usually earlier in the program. The reasons can be as you mentioned, and often there are non-academic reasons as well.
You do have to apply again from scratch, although its possible that admissions committees will look more generously on the application. You might be able to apply out of cycle for spring admission as well - there are fewer applicants and each application gets more careful scrutiny.
But in any case it is important to have a reason relating to the desired destination. If you want to work with professor X it will help immensely if professor X can speak on your behalf by writing a letter. In other words, don't think of transferring out, but think about transferring in to maybe one or two targeted placed.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **Computer username_9**
Yes, PhD students transfer for *many* reasons besides moving advisors. Sometimes the reasons are purely professional; for instance, I've seen several students successfully transfer because they discovered a passion for a subfield that didn't match the interests/experience of the local faculty. Sometimes they're more personal things like [two-body problems](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-body_problem_%28career%29) (especially when they become [three-body problems](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant)). Sometimes advisors die or leave academia. Sometimes it's because of an irreconcilable disagreement between student and advisor/committee. Sometimes the student just thinks they can do better than their current department (and has the publications to prove it).
Probably the most painless time to transfer is immediately after completing a master's degree. (I did this.) That's a natural time to switch research directions, and many PhD programs allow their students to pick up a Master's degree along the way, even if they don't have a separate Master's program. (Mine didn't.)
Still, applications from MS students in PhD departments will face skepticism, especially if the applicant already has a good track record with their former advisor.\* (Why do they want to leave their current advisor? Shouldn't we offer this slot to someone who doesn't have one?) So it's important for the applicant's research statement to explain why the new department would a better match, *without disparaging the old department*. It's also important to have a strong and supportive recommendation letter from the former advisor, to address possible concerns about technical weaknesses or personality conflicts.
(\*And if a PhD applicant *doesn't* have a good track record with their MS advisor, they're not likely to be admitted anyway.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: **Mathematics**
Let me specify that by transferring, I mean moving to another university in the middle of a graduate program. Switching universities between undergrad and grad or between a master's degree and a Ph.D. is very different. Basically, those are the only mainstream opportunities to move, and anything else will require an exception.
Transferring is certainly not unheard of, but there are some serious caveats:
1. It's difficult to transfer to a substantially more prestigious department. It can happen, but the admissions committee will be very skeptical, and it's just not going to work out unless the application is outstanding. In particular, many committee members specifically do not want to reward rolling the dice again and seeing what happens, so for transfers the question is not "Does this application look better than our weaker students?" but rather "Is this application so obviously wonderful that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we accepted someone else instead?"
2. Expressing any unhappiness will make it much harder to transfer. You may think you'll be happy at the new school, but they will worry about ending up with an unhappy, unproductive grad student on their hands. And they are right to worry about that: the best predictor of future happiness is past happiness, and many unhappy people have unrealistic beliefs about what would make them happy.
3. It's hard to transfer once you start seriously working on a thesis. If your work isn't going well, then that's a reason not to accept you. If your work is going well, then that's a reason you should continue working with your current advisor. Unless your advisor has died or left, it will be tough to convince anyone you are a good candidate for transferring.
4. No matter why you say you want to transfer, there will be some suspicion that your goal is to end up in a stronger department or a more desirable location. If you have another reason, you'll have to make a powerful argument for it.
>
> I've heard of people transferring between graduate schools because of their advisor moving to another school and taking their students with them.
>
>
>
Sometimes they transfer officially, and sometimes they still get degrees from the previous school but complete their theses while in residence at the new school. The latter is generally easy to arrange when an advisor moves.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: I transferred during the first year of my PhD program successfully. My project at my original department was fully funded and my adviser was also great. However, I did not like the department and my PhD major was not in line with my interest. Thus, I applied for another major which I liked more.
One problem that may arise is recommendation letter. I asked my MS adviser (in another school) to write letter. I also asked my PhD adviser for recommendation letter. This part is a bit tricky, but I suggest to be honest and tell the truth and provide detail explanation for your decision.
I talked with 4 faculty members about my application in a conference. Three of them did not have any problem whatsoever with the fact that I am a PhD student from another school, and they recommended me to apply whereas one of them told me that the department does not accept transfer student. I finally got admitted into one school. I applied from a mid-rank school to top rank schools.
My personal view is that there is nothing wrong with transferring from one school to another, but you should have a good reason for doing that. In any case, some faculty members understand that a student could have many reasonable reasons for moving away from a school and joining another one while others are not very open-minded and think that it is wrong.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Selection of graduate students is hard.
It's fine to switch programs, but it's a lot like switching jobs after a short period. If you start a job somewhere, then immediately leave it, you need a decent reason in your narrative. The program you're applying to needs to believe that you're interested in sticking around when crunch time comes, or you're not worth the investment.
It helps if you have a legitimate-sounding reason in your personal statement that makes it sound like the reason you left the previous institution is unlikely to recur. It *definitely* helps if you have an LOR from your former advisor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: **username_9 (chemistry).**
It is very hard, up to impossible, to change PhD program in science after you started one, as well as starting over after a failed attempt.
The only option is before you enroll in any.
Even if this is not directly stated in requirements, selection comity will be very suspicious and very unlikely to admit such a student.
For the most part already enrolled applicants or applicants that were enrolled and quit are not considered eligible be programs and in almost all cases you are not eligible to apply for a scholarship.
I now as I am trying to change the PhD program.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: **Molecular Biology**
The only time I can think of when PhD students changed universities was on the unexpected death of their advisor. In that case, former students of the advisor who had since started their own labs took on the students, in some cases temporarily until they could find a better fit, in other cases until graduation. For the "better fit" cases, I believe both student and new supervisor approached the better-fit lab and explained the situation.
In the case I'm thinking of, the deceased advisor was very well known, came from a highly prestigious university, and had many former students in strong positions. I don't know how well it would have worked if all those points were not the case.
Aside from that instance, it's very rare for PhD candidates to move locations without your advisor moving as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I am currently trying to transfer too. My story isn`t the nicest neither. I met one guest speaker at my current university and just loved her work. My lab is stacked in old technologies and I feel we aren't innovative at all.
I talked with this guest speaker and her answer was very positive regarding getting me as her student. However she asked me to tell my supervisor before applying: bad idea.
Maybe because I am in Asia and here the culture is that your professor is a God, he was really unpleasant and rude with me. He even said he would write bad recommendation letters for me if I change universities. For me that was harassment. His main reason was the money invested and how bad this looks for him and for the university.
My advise is: be sure you can move and then talk with your adviser. The only positive thing was that after talking with him, I was certain that I was at the wrong place. I am positive I can change. So if you aren't happy or the program isn't aligned with your future goals and perspectives, change! Don't waste your time.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/18 | 767 | 2,892 | <issue_start>username_0: We've already discussed about [which bibliometric indeces are diffused the most](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42/what-are-the-common-productivity-measures-of-a-scientist-like-h-index), and how they work.
We all know that, along the most common [**h-index**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index), there are many other parameters deriving from it or similar to it.
From [Publish or Perish website](http://www.harzing.com/pophelp/metrics.htm), we can list:
* g-index: [Egghe's g-index](http://www.harzing.com/pophelp/metrics.htm#gindex)
* hc-index: the [contemporary h-index](http://www.harzing.com/pophelp/metrics.htm#hcindex)
* individual h-index: [its three variations hI-index, hI-norm, and hm-index](http://www.harzing.com/pophelp/metrics.htm#hiindex)
Between these (and other) bibliometrics indeces, **which one do you trust more?**
Which one do you think is the **best one** to get the scientific excellence of an author?
Why?
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is NONE. A longer answer is "to get the scientific excellence of an author, read their papers and understand their contributions".
The problem here is in expecting a number to characterize the contributions and quality of an individual researcher. Probably the only way in which these measures can be useful (and that's stretching it a LOT) is if they are viewed in aggregate (for a department/university) to get a very crude picture of **research productivity** (not excellence).
But the signal is so noisy as to be useless.
Really, there's no shortcut for the hard work of reading, researching and asking in order to assess the "scientific excellence" of a researcher.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Indices are (unfortunately) liked by managers, administrators and funding agencies rather than by researchers. Hence, you should ask these managers, administrators and agencies which indices they trust (and why). I am not sure that academia.SE is the right place to find managers...
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: You can trust them all, equally. Each index has a precise meaning that is well defined (once the database used is given). For example, if a researcher has h-index 3, you know that she has at least 3 papers with at least 3 citation each, and that she has not 4 papers with more than 3 citation each, and this is quite reliable informations.
Now, what you probably mean is whether we can trust some index to say something else; but what? Research productivity? Academic success?
It's just like the number of books sold by a novelist. You can trust it to tell you how many books she sold, and it may help you decide whether you want to publish its next one if you are only interested in sales. Of course if you want to decide whether she deserves the Nobel prize, you might not want to base your decision on this index.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/19 | 827 | 3,488 | <issue_start>username_0: Journals such as [AMTD](http://www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net) and [ACPD](http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net) contain an open discussion where anybody can comment on papers under review. The peer-reviewers are still anonymous, but other people commenting are not. If I'm reading a paper and have questions about it, what are the pros and cons on posting them as public comments versus writing an e-mail to the author directly? On the one hand my comments may improve the paper; on the other hand, if I write something stupid or step on somebody's toe, that may harm my future career.
What do others think?
(Edit: I might add that in the case I have in mind, I am already in contact with the author)<issue_comment>username_1: The first advantage that comes to my mind is that emailing the author and getting an answer will only help you, while commenting on the paper and getting an answer in the open discussions might help other readers as well.
But I really understand your concerns. One does not want to embarrass oneself or the author.
Which leads me to the inconclusive result of `+1` for both methods.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would try to answer this from the standpoint of a cost-benefit analysis.
A private conversation with the author will benefit you in that you now know the answer, and can harm you in that if your question is completely boneheaded the author will think you're an idiot.
A public conversation has the added benefit that you *and* other people both benefit. This is somewhat of a questionable added benefit, as oftentimes the question being asked isn't relevant to most people, but still, added discourse is often a good thing. Public discussion also has the added cost that more people can see your boneheadedness. While typically this wouldn't be a problem, as most people wouldn't ever encounter the discussion, anything on the internet can go viral, even if only within a smaller community (such as your research field). Personally, that cost strongly outweights the potential benefit. I would definitely stick with personal correspondence.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: By openly and intelligently commenting on many new papers in your subfield, you might gain respect among your peers, which is the currency of the academic world. I can give at least one example: <http://nuit-blanche.blogspot.co.uk/>.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As I pointed out recently in <http://nuit-blanche.blogspot.com/2012/07/problem-with-pre-publication-peer.html> , the problem with the current peer review system is not the rejection and all the horror stories that go with it, it is the secrecy that goes with the process. Make anonymous the reviews but hold the reviewers accountable is the surest way reviews can be both effective and provide some "currency" as +username_3 points out.
In short If I were you, I would send the author some questions, then (after her/his approval) make the whole discussion available on the interwebs (after you have edited the parts that are sensitive or the ones that make you look really clueless). I do this often on Nuit Blanche with good results. Make sure you run the whole thing you are going to publish through the person you talked to as you are not a journalist. If you ask questions, you surely are not the first or the last one and remember what you publish must enlight both the people of your community and your future self.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/19 | 1,290 | 4,806 | <issue_start>username_0: I was contacted by the Acquisition editor of Lambert Academic Publishing (LAP) to publish my bachelor's thesis as a printed book. Is LAP any good? I have no idea about it; I have just heard that it's a freelance publishing house.<issue_comment>username_1: No.
---
Publishing a thesis this way has no academic value whatsoever. (I.e., it will lead to no prestige, respectability, credit, etc. For academic purposes, it will not count as a published book, except for interfering with other forms of publication.) LAP's business model seems to be collecting as many theses and other unpublished academic documents as they can and then selling printed copies. I don't see much value to this, but it could be harmless if you do not plan to publish the thesis in any other form. If you like the idea of seeing your thesis for sale on amazon.com, then you should investigate other options as well and choose whatever seems like the best deal. However, it's unlikely that you'll make any money from this, and certainly no more than a small amount, so you'll be contributing more to the academic community if you make the thesis available for free online.
See also [I Sold My Undergraduate Thesis to a Print Content Farm](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/03/lap_lambert_academic_publishing_my_trip_to_a_print_content_farm.single.html) for a detailed account of LAP's business practices.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Publish them online for maximum impact or try a genuine academic publisher for prestige. Lambert will basically offer to print out individual copies of your thesis for a very high price (thus making a lot of money). Plus they use fake accounts in social media among other shady practices:
<http://journalology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/lambert-academic-publishing-or-how-not.html>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: No, it is not.
See this review from <NAME>:
<http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/05/lambert-academic-publishing-a-must-to-avoid/#more-921>
(I highly recommend checking his list of 'predatory academic publishers' and reporting any new one you see to him).
Or this blog entry:
<http://chrisnf.blogspot.com/2010/06/lambert-academic-publishing-continues.html>
It's what people started to call a 'predatory publisher'
It will bring you nothing but an expensive hard copy of what you apparently already published. Your local printing joint will probably do a better job, for less $.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Good god, no, avoid anything from Lambert like the plague.I bought a Lap Lambert publication online from Amazon without checking on the publisher first. It was on a topic that was relevant to my thesis and I felt I should check this book out. It's called "Aspects of Neuroses in Pat Barker's Regeneration Trilogy" by a <NAME>wan from Cairo university. I paid a lot of money, a total of $154 for quick postage, because I was anxious to read it, thinking it might cover material in my own work, necessitating changes to my own thesis. I also thought that if it was an astute and well researched piece of work it might be very useful and take my own arguments in new and fruitful directions. But when I read the book I was appalled. You can see my one star review of it on Amazon if you care to read it, at [http://www.amazon.com/Aspects-neuroses-barkers-regeneration-trilogy/dp/3848406403/ref=sr\_1\_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454636030&sr=1-1&keywords=mona+radwan](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/3848406403)
I could not believe a publisher would allow its name to be associated with such a shoddy product. Even the blurbs on the back cover are very badly worded and punctuated. The contents of the book are poorly formatted. There are terrible problems with the thesis itself, in punctuation, structure, citation, referencing, style and level of research, indicating either that Radwan submitted it before her thesis was examined or before receiving comments from supervisors, because so much is wrong with this as a doctoral thesis. I am making this comment to warn everyone away from anything that comes out of this dreadful shambles of a publishing house. Avoid it like the plague. I have been burned. Save yourself.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Although it may seem harmless at first, there is one thing that is very important to bear in mind when you intend to publish your work: You do NOT want your name nor work associated with any dubious publishers, editors, conferences, journals, etc, as it may be harmful, e.g. you may end up having your high-quality work published amongst several low-quality ones.
Therefore, in my opinion, you should not risk Lambert, as they do not have any peer reviewing nor seem to enforce any quality standards.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/20 | 1,851 | 7,893 | <issue_start>username_0: [The UK recently decided](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/15/free-access-british-scientific-research) that from 2014, all research papers supported by public funds must be published in open-access journals.
For instance, the Research Councils UK announced [a new policy stating that](http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/media/news/2012news/Pages/120716.aspx):
>
> The new policy, which will apply to all qualifying publications being submitted for publication from 1 April 2013, states that peer reviewed research papers which result from research that is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils:
>
>
> * must be published in journals which are compliant with Research Council policy on Open Access
> * must include details of the funding that supported the research, and a statement on how the underlying research materials such as data, samples or models can be accessed.
>
>
>
My question is the following: what could concretely happen if someone does not respect this policy? For instance, if someone publishes both in open-access and in paywall journals, does that mean that only those in open-access count in the report to the RCUK? Or does that mean that you can get "black-listed" if you publish in paywall journals?
EDIT: Directly related question: what happen if one publishes a paper in a paywall journal and publishes at the same time the pre-print on a freely accessible archive?<issue_comment>username_1: My guess is that non-open access publications will not be able to be counted towards the REF (or whatever replaces the REF), used in annual progress reports, or be considered by grant reviewers when evaluating your track record. If Research Councils (RCs) catch you publishing in a non-open access journal, they likely will be able to charge the university for the costs associated with making it open access and possibly black list you from further funding.
I think these punishments will be rare, because I don't think the UK RC model is very different from the US NIH model. The US model requires open access after an embargo period. It is not clear if the UK model allows for an embargo. The US system allows for the version accepted by the journal, but not yet copy edited and typeset by the journal, to be made open access. Many journals just make the final copy available after the embargo, but not all do. It sounds like the UK system will require a creative commons licensing, which I think would allow publishers to copy edit, typeset and sell the open access version. Complying with the US regulations is relatively easy, so I doubt it will be hard to comply with the UK regulations.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Every scientific grant I know of has a clause stating that continued disbursement of funds is contingent on compliance with the the terms of the grant. So the most likely result of violating those terms is that they'll stop funding you. I think there would also be a strong effect on your professional reputation, since you signed an agreement to abide by those terms and then willingly violated them.
If you violated the terms of the grant *after* it expired, you would probably not get funding from that agency in the future.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: It seems slightly annoying, but not insurmountable. From the UK Research Council's [Policy on Access](http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx), I quote,
>
> The Research Councils define Open Access to mean unrestricted, on-line access to peer reviewed and published scholarly research papers. Specifically a user must be able to do the following free of any publisher-imposed access charge:
>
>
> 1. Read published research papers in an electronic format.
> 2. Search for and re-use (including download) the content [*N.b.: footnote specifies including but not limited to the text, data, images, and figures*] of published research papers both manually and using automated tools (such as those for text and data mining) provided that any such re-use is subject to proper attribution.
>
>
> Open Access therefore allows unrestricted use of manual and automated text and data mining tools, as well as unrestricted re-use of content with proper attribution – as defined by the Creative Commons CC-BY license. The Research Councils acknowledge that some publications may need to amend their copyright
> conditions if they are to meet this definition of Open Access.
>
>
>
Furthermore, about compliance by journals:
>
> The Research Councils will continue to support a mixed approach to Open Access. The Research Councils will recognise a journal as being compliant with their policy on Open Access if:
>
>
> 1. The journal provides via its own website immediate and unrestricted access to the publisher’s final version of the paper (the Version of Record), and allows immediate deposit of the Version of Record in other repositories without restriction on re-use. This may involve payment of an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC) to the publisher. The CC-BY license should be used in this case. **OR**
> 2. Where a publisher does not offer option 1 above, the journal must allow deposit of Accepted Manuscripts that include all changes resulting from peer review (but not necessarily incorporating the publisher’s formatting) in other repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial re-use and within a defined period. In this option no ‘Article Processing Charge’ will be payable to the publisher. Research Councils will accept a delay of no more than six months between on-line publication and a research paper becoming Open Access, except in the case of research papers arising from research funded by the AHRC and the ESRC where the maximum embargo period is 12 months.
>
>
>
For individual grant recipients, the most important bit is probably the following:
>
> RCUK have in the past provided support for APCs through both direct and indirect costs as part of grant funding. From 1st April 2013 and until further notice, RCUK will support the payment of APCs and other publication charges related to Research Council-funded research solely through block grants to UK Higher Education Institutions, approved independent research organisations and Research Council Institutes. Research grant applications will, therefore, no longer include provision for Open Access publication or other publication charges.
>
>
> In all cases universities and research organisations upon receipt of funding should transfer these charges to
> their institutional publication fund. A university or research organisation can then access these funds to pay
> for APCs for any article resulting from research council funding.
>
>
>
and from the "guidance" document:
>
> The Research Councils will be amending their conditions of award to reflect these new requirements and will be extending existing mechanisms which capture research grants outputs (such as the Research Outputs System) to include compliance monitoring on this policy.
>
>
>
---
To summarise: much as <NAME> [anticipated](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2518/94), the policy allows for *either* a fully open access publication *or* publishing in a pay-walled journal which allows you to deposit the Accepted Manuscript in certain repositories, with an acceptable embargo delay. And enforcement of this will be much in the same way other conditions for grant dispersal are enforced. (They tell you what you can do with the money; if you don't follow the rules, they take the money back and/or not give you money ever again.)
The only thing to additionally note is the small caveat that *pay-walled journals, to qualify for the second option of "open access" cannot charge article processing fees*. (Which is not too unreasonable: a journal is to charge either the author or the reader but not both.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/20 | 890 | 3,318 | <issue_start>username_0: My goal is to produce a graph showing the linkages (and lack there of) between several fields that share a common subproblem by showing who cites whom. There are many databases that show citations between papers: [ISI Web of Knowledge](http://apps.webofknowledge.com/), [Microsoft Academic Research](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/), and Google Scholar. However none allows me to download even part of their database. Is there some database I have overlooked? Has someone written a scrapper for one of these websites?
For reference, the fields I'm considering are Mechanics, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Signal Processing, Geophysics, and several others.<issue_comment>username_1: **Scraping Google Scholar**
I found this:
<https://github.com/tonybreyal/Blog-Reference-Functions/blob/master/R/googleScholarXScraper/googleScholarXScraper.R>
I also wrote something a while back, though it's not pretty:
<https://github.com/ketch/scinet/blob/master/gss.py>
Using either of these you could trace citations forward through the literature.
Note that Scholar will block you if you hit it too many times, too quickly.
---
You can download thousands of records at a time from Scopus, if you have access:
1. Run a search.
2. Tick the box to select all documents.
3. Click "create bibliography".
4. Export to desired format.
However, this doesn't include citation information, so it's probably useless to you.
---
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Our WikiCite project uses Wikidata to store bibliographic information including citation information. The data from Wikidata is free under CC0 license and you are able to access the data via XML dumps, RDF dumps, the web API and the Wikidata Query Service with a SPARQL endpoint.
While the bibliographic data in Wikidata is certainly not complete as of October 2017, Wikidata editors have done considerable work so Wikidata now contains over 8 million scientific articles and over 36 million citations. The coverage may be somewhat ok'ish for a start in Magnetic Resonance Imaging while quite bad in fields such as Mechanics, Signal Processing and Geophysics.
The Wikidata Query Service is used in our Scholia webservice to aggregate and display scholarly information in tables, plots and graphs, including citation graphs. Scholia, via the Wikidata Query Service, allows you to zoom in on a topic and create co-author graphs and co-occuring topics graph with respect to a topic. For instance, for the machine learning concept of "embedding" you can see the graphs here: <https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/topic/Q29043227>. Small partial citation graphs are displayed on the 'work' pages, see, e.g., <https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/work/Q21090025>.
It is possible to extract the bibliographic data with the Wikidata Query Service. For a co-author graph of the big connected component I used a SPARQL query against the Wikidata Query Service and Gephi on the downloaded results. The resulting image - and the SPARQL queries - are available here: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scholarly_co-author_graph_via_Wikidata,_2017-05-26.png>
You can read more about the approach of using Wikidata for scientometrics work in this paper: "Scholia and scientometrics with Wikidata", <https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04222>
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/20 | 1,120 | 4,567 | <issue_start>username_0: I have just started my PhD and although I love research and everything that accompanies it but I am put off by Academia a bit and would prefer an Industry job at the end of my PhD.
What can I do differently during my PhD years with this ambition in mind?
I have read "[PhD Grind](http://pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir/pguo-PhD-grind.pdf)" by <NAME> wherein he states that at the end, he disliked Academia and thus his motives at conferences and other events changed from "crazy networking". Further, he spent more summers working in companies (Google and Microsoft Research, in his case) than with other research groups.
Specifically, should I handle the following any differently:
* Relation with Advisor
* How I spend my summers
* Conferences
* Publications<issue_comment>username_1: If your goal after grad school is to get a job, then during grad school
* you should **do the things needed to** impress the people you want to hire you and to **be accepted and esteemed in their community**.
* Slightly more concretely, **find people who now have the career that you would like to have**, and during grad school **do stuff that they have done**.
I still think *networking is key*, but now you may be networking with a different group of people.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think the number one thing you can do is plan your internships appropriately. Want a job at Google? Spend a summer there in a product group. Ditto for twitter, facebook, ebay, etc: all of these companies have large internship programs open to PhD students. Not only will this give you contacts inside the company, it will give you an idea for the kinds of problems that they need to solve, which can (if they are interesting), inspire the direction of your research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think it is really critical that at each stage of academia you are thinking about the next stage and how to get there. For those interested in staying in academia, I take the often controversial view that you should do everything possible to delay getting to the tenure review (extra time as a student and post doc). For someone interested in an industry job, it is all finishing asap. For industry, PhD and post doc experience just isn't that valuable. With that in mind ...
>
> Relation with Advisor
>
>
>
You should tell your advisers that you are interested in industry jobs. This will help them tailor how they market you to your colleagues. It might mean they are more receptive to adding an industry contact to your committee or changing your topic slightly. They also might help you finish faster.
>
> How I spend my summers
>
>
>
Summers should be spent working on your PhD (i.e., trying to finish as quickly as possible) and picking up skills useful for industry.
>
> Conferences
>
>
>
If your goal is industry, conferences are no longer about meeting colleagues and selling your research. It is about hanging out with the vendors and industry reps. Small conferences, which are great for meeting a post doc adviser, are probably less useful.
>
> Publications
>
>
>
Back burner them. Take second authorship and let someone else spend the time writing them. They are not going to be critical for getting you an industry job or promotion.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: From my own experience:
* Do well in all your courses. Those who will be hiring you in industry generally places a higher importance on grades than those in academia.
* Publications are still important, but not nearly as much as in academia. Having a few papers under your belt will demonstrate that you know what you're talking about and that your research has been reviewed and accepted by your peers.
* As was stated in other answers, find out what skills are necessary in the field you wish to enter, and master those skills. Oftentimes this will involve familiarity with a set of techniques or understanding of a very specific field. This is significantly different from academia. Remember, people in industry will want to hire you so you can help their business make money. The faster you can do that, the more easily you'll find employment.
* Network, network, network. If you know specifically what you want to do in industry, talk to everyone you can (people in your academic program, friends, relatives) about possible leads in industry. If you don't know which field you want to enter, start talking to people very early on so that you can appropriately customize your training to your needs.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/20 | 641 | 2,727 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it legal (for a faculty member) to publicly reveal a student's performance in PhD comprehensive exams? In the US, isn't this in violation of [FERPA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act), the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974?<issue_comment>username_1: Edit, again: The question seems to have changed, yet again. :)
1. A student can reveal their own performance in an exam. That information is their property.
2. Faculty cannot publicly reveal students' performances, as that would, indeed, violate the "FERPA" laws. (As parent of over-18 college student, whose tuition I'm paying, I do not have access to her grades without her permission!)
Edit: Hm... the sense of the question is radically changed. [Initially, it was about faculty publicly disclosing students' performance results. When this answer was written, it had become about whether one could disclose one's *own* results.] Sure, one is at liberty to reveal one's own quality-of-performance on an exam in the U.S. The "FERPA" laws would only prevent your examiners from revealing your performance publicly or to anyone who did not have a legitimate operational professional reason to have access.
It might be that the *content* of the exam might be partly confidential, but that is a different issue.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I can think of three reasons why a faculty member might reveal how a student performed on a qualifying examination.
1. When writing letters of recommendation requested by the student. Ideally you will have students provide you with written or electronic documentation stating what areas will be touched upon in a letter of recommendation. Assuming the student consents to you mentioning the qualifying examination, then you should be covered from litigation.
2. When approached for a reference that the student hasn't informed you that they have requested. Often students list individuals as references, but then don't let the potential referees know. As of two years ago, my school has advised us to say nothing in these cases. While this initially hurt our students, they are now aware of the policy, and the number of surprise requests is greatly diminished. If you chose to ignore school policy and reveal information about the student, then you can presumably be held liable.
3. Gossip. It can be accidental where you implying that someone failed his qualifying examination: "John is no longer a student here". It can also be intentional: "Don't be so quick to write off John's theory, he aced his qualifying exam." Both can get you in trouble. As with most gossip, you need to be careful with what you say and who is listening.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/21 | 4,706 | 18,588 | <issue_start>username_0: What's the difference between an associate professor and an assistant professor?
What can one of them do that the other can't? and which is a higher level? can any of them supervise a PhD student?<issue_comment>username_1: In a typical university in the **United States**:
An assistant professor is an entry-level faculty member. They are generally on the tenure track (although the term "assistant professor" does not guarantee this) but do not have tenure yet. Typically, within about seven years an assistant professor will either be promoted to associate professor or will leave the university, although the timing can vary a little and it's theoretically possible to remain an assistant professor forever.
An associate professor is one step up from an assistant professor. This promotion is usually the same as getting tenure, but not always. (Some universities, like MIT, frequently have non-tenured associate professors.) The final step for most faculty is a full professorship.
As for what an associate professor can do that an assistant professor can't, that varies even more than the terminology. In many US universities, the only additional power an associate professor has is voting on who gets tenure, but I wouldn't claim this is universally true.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the **Netherlands** both assistant and associate professors are frequently tenured (= have a permanent position). Associate professors are expected to develop their own research line, while assistant professors can work on the topics of their bosses (full professors). Neither assistant nor associate professors can formally supervise PhD students: they can only co-supervise. There are some more minor differences: e.g., associate professors can be members of the Ph.D. assessment committee, assistant - not, unless they are co-supervisors of the candidate.
**Update 2018**: As of last year associate professors at some universities have been granted the right to formally supervise PhD students. Details of the implementation are however left to the universities, and, e.g., Eindhoven decided to grant this right only to *senior* associate professors.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: In **Australia**, the typical hierarchy is:
1. Level A. Associate lecturer
2. Level B. Lecturer
3. Level C. Senior lecturer
4. Level D. Associate professor
5. Level E. Professor
In the typical Australian ranking system, there is no "assistant professor" . In this academic ranking system associate professor is a high ranking. I think that both associate professor and professor in Australia would correspond roughly to professor in the United States.
As is noted in the comments, a small number of Australian universities have adopted (or adopted and then reverted back from) the American system. So you may find Assistant Professor is used occasionally. Assistant Professor probably maps onto Australian Level B (Lecturer).
Supervision of a PhD student depends on university regulations. At my university in Australia, there are several requirements in order to be a principal supervisor. In particular, (a) you need to have completed your own PhD or in rare cases be of equivalent standing, (b) have been an associate supervisor of PhD student to completion, or completed a set of training and experiential activities.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: In **France**, the position *Assistant Professor* is a permanent position. As research activities are also done in labs in addition to the universities, the positions are:
* assistant professor *(<NAME>)* : permanent teaching position, but can not supervise PhD students alone.
Is typically working towards a **habilitation** (HDR, *habilitation à diriger des recherches*), a longer-lasting standalone research project of about 5 years, during which the person co-supervised a few PhD students. After defending the project in front of the jury a person with an HDR can supervise PhD students alone.
* professor *(professeur des universités)* : permanent teaching position, can supervise PhD students alone.
* full researcher *(chargé* or *directeur de recherche)* : permanent research position without teaching, can supervise PhD students alone if holder of the HDR.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: In the **Czech Republic**, and I suppose that in some other "former Eastern block" countries it's similar, there are 3 types of university permanent positions:
* **asistent** -- usually translated **assistant professor**
* **docent** -- usually translated **associated professor** -- you become a docent when you do your habilitation
* **profesor** -- usually translated **full professor** -- you become a profesor when the president of the Czech Republic promotes you.
There are no other distinguished levels at the universities. However, the Academy of Sciences is completely seperated, and it's different there. Nobody is, however, called a professor there.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: In Uruguay, it is not really related to tenure:
* Grado 1: ayudante de clase (only for basic subjects)
* Grado 2: asistente de clase (like an assistant prof, for 4 yrs, they can renew the position once)
* Grado 3: profesor adjunto
* Grado 4: profesor agregado
* Grado 5: profesor (aka: catedratico or chairman/head of the department)
The last 2 are more administrative/in charge of lectures than clinical in med-school, though they do perform surgeries with residents.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: In Spain you get:
* Level 0: Classroom assistant (usually talented students who may, or may not, receive a grant for their work)
* Level 1: Assistant Professor
(usually short term, part-time)
* Level 2: Professor (usually mid-term, full time)
* Level 3: Doctoral Professor (same as before, but requires a PhD title)
* Level 4: Professor Researcher (requires publications in journals and related research activities, besides teaching. It accumulates tenure)
* Level 5: Catedrático (Cathedratic/"Full Professor" in the English system. In Latin it means "the one with a (guaranteed) chair")
* Level 6: Department Director (typically a cathedratic, but oftentimes occupied by Researchers or Doctors)
* Level 7: Vicedean (depending on the structure of the university, it may
supervise several departments/areas, or just some narrow ones, such
as student recruitment. If the latter, then its professional category
is actually around level 3 or 4)
* Level 8: Decano/Dean (the top position within a faculty area i.e: Medicine. In Latin it means: ten straight years)
* Level 9: Vicerrector (Vice Chancellor: it follows similar rules as vicedeans, but for the whole university)
* Level 10: Rector (Chancellor/Provost/CEO: the top position at a university, chosen by democratic elections among students, docents and other workers of the university)
* Level 11: Some public officers from the Ministry of Education (such as the Secretary for Education or Universities), including the Minister (who is chosen by the President of the country right after national elections, and sometimes more than once during a mandate).
Also bear in mind, that universities in Spain and elsewhere are usually highly politicized environments that conduct regular elections at university, faculty and department levels, so a Professor Researcher might be Dpt. Dr. for some years, then be a Researcher and later be elected as Rector, finally staying as Cathedratic, for instance. the highest staff rotation occurs at the lower levels, while the top levels are the most political. Of course, technical and scientific knowledge plays a role of paramount importance as well.
The situation, however, may differ from one university to the other, particularly according to their size and their public or private nature.
Supervision of PhD students is usually performed by levels 3, 4 and 5, with some cases of level 6 and above. Actually, the more the thesis supervised, the more likely it is to climb up the ladder.
Remember as well that, in Spanish, there exists a single word for both the terms "teacher" and "professor", which is "profesor" (with the accent on the last syllable), so denominations may vary; for instance: all High School teachers are generally called "profesor" even if they didn't earn a doctorate degree ("doctorado"). This is so again because of the latin origin of the verb "profesar" which means "the one who declares, or speaks publicly" and is typically use as a synonym to "perform" (some kind of job or occupation) with devotion and commitment.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: At the University of Wyoming, associate professors have tenure while assistant professors do not. Full professorship is a time thing, not a standing thing here. We have associate professors as department chairs, as doctoral advisors, and they can vote on tenure. Full professors just have a raise and have been there awhile.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: In **France**, there is no position equivalent to assistant professor. The position closest to associate professor is a permanent position.
* *Maître de conférences* (MCF, ~ associate professor): Permanent research and teaching position. Can not supervise PhD students alone without an HDR (see next point). Can serve on committees for recruiting new MCFs in the university.
* *Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches* (HDR): A longer-lasting standalone research project of several years, sometimes requiring to have co-supervised a few students. Not a position per se, but allows to supervise PhD students alone and is often necessary to move on to the next position.
* *Professeur des universités* (PR, ~ full professor): Senior permanent research and teaching position. In most cases, requires an HDR (which is still necessary to supervise PhD students alone). Can serve on committees for recruiting new MCFs and PRs.
In national research institutes such as the CNRS, two equivalent positions exist: *Chargé de recherche* (CR, "Junior Scientist") and *Directeur de recherche* (DR, "Research Director", "Senior Scientist"). Both are roughly equivalent to maître de conférences and professeur, respectively; one main difference is that there is no teaching load for these positions. An HDR is also necessary in most cases to be promoted directeur de recherche. An MCF can become DR (rather rare as far as I understand?), and a CR can become PR.
For more information see the Wikipedia article [Academic ranks in France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_France).
---
(The [other answer about France](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/16815) is somewhat misleading, and I've been [told by a moderator I should post a new answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/42329) rather than edit the old one.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: In India, at regional universities and institutes, *Assistant professor* is an entry level position in colleges. For this you need to have a master degree. After 4-5 years of experience as an Assistant Professor you may be promoted to *Associate Professor*. That depends on your knowledge and passion in this field.
If you have a Ph.D. in any subject, then you can directly become an Associate professor.
If you want to become a Professor you need to have at least 3-5 years of experience as an Associate Professor with PhD.
You can do Ph.D. along with your Assistant Professor Career.
The positions are in the following order:
1. Assistant Professor (Master Degree + 0 or more years of experience)
2. Associate Professor (Ph.D.)
3. Professor (Ph.D. + 3-5 years of experience)
However, at top-notch institutes (like IITs and IISc etc.) or the best universities ( Delhi Univ., Cal. Univ.), a faculty member must hold a Ph.D. degree.
In fact, in IITs, at least 2 post-docs from reputed foreign schools are necessary even for an entry level assistant Prof.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: In Venezuela, both assistant and associate exist, and both are full professors, but you move from one category to another due to the amount and quality of research you perform, as well as the degrees they hold:
The positions are:
1. *Instructor* : Mostly, they are in charge of teaching up to three subjects or three classes, conducting researches and participating in community service projects as tutors. This position is based on tenure (0-2+ years).
2. *Asistente* (Assistant): They are in charge of teaching up to three subjects or three classes, conducting researches, participating in community service projects as tutors, tutoring another researchers, being part of an academic group (Student Recruitment, Post-graduate Programs, username_9 Service Development, Cultural Affairs, etc). Professors get to this position once they hold a master's degree.
3. *Agregado* (Aggregate): They are in charge of the same responsibilities as an Assistant Professor, but can be the Head of a Subject/Area and a Lab Coordinator. Professors get to this position either holding a master’s degree or conducting a research that gets reviewed and approved by some experts (professors from higher positions, including the Dean). They can also get to this position by getting a research paper published in a distinguished academic journal. Papers are also reviewed and approved by some experts from the Faculty (professors from higher positions, including the Dean).
4. *Asociado* (Associate): They are in charge of the same responsibilities as an Aggregate Professor. Professors get to this position once they get two research papers published in a distinguished academic journal. Papers are also reviewed and approved by some experts from the Faculty (professors from higher positions, including the Dean).
5. *Titular*: They are in charge of the same responsibilities as an Aggregate Professor, but they can be Head of a Department. Professors get to this position once they hold a PhD, but they can also get to this position by getting three research papers published in a distinguished academic journal. Papers are also reviewed and approved by some experts from the Faculty (professors from higher positions, including the Dean).
To get to those positions, a professor must have gotten a **full contract**.
According to their contract type, they can be:
1. *Tiempo Convencional*: Teaching hours vary from 6, 8, 10 or 12. They do not hold any other academic/administrative responsibility beyond teaching. They are all Instructors.
2. *Medio Tiempo*: 12 Teaching hours + 6 hours that can be for research or community service tutoring. They are all Instructors.
3. ***Tiempo Completo***: 35 working hours weekly (12 for teaching + 23 for the other academic/administrative responsibilities). They must be at least Assistants.
4. ***Dedicación Exclusiva***: 38 working hours weekly (12 for teaching + 26 for the other academic/administrative responsibilities). They are not allowed to have another job. They must be at least Aggregate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: In NIGERIA the academic positions are in the following order of hierarchy:
1. Graduate Assistant
2. Assistant Lecturer
3. Lecture II
4. Lecturer I
5. Senior Lecturer
6. Associate Professor
7. Professor
There is therefore no "assistant professor" in the academic ranking system in Nigeria. However, by comparison associate professor is a higher ranking of about 7-9 years above Assistant Professor. In my opinion, I think both Associate Professor and Professor in Nigeria would roughly equals to Professor in the United States; similar to the situation in Australia. The UK university/academic ranking system is practised in Nigeria.
Supervision of a PhD depends on university regulations. At my university in Nigeria, there are several requirements in order to be a lead supervisor of a PhD, in particular, (i) you need to have completed your own PhD with relevant post qualification experience, (ii) have been a member of supervisory committee(s) of PhD candidate(s) to completion, or completed a set of training activities in related research area.
Promotions from one academic rank to another takes a minimum of three (3) years in addition to the required or relevant research outputs and publications. There are guidelines by each university on the minimum requirements for promotions across the academic hierarchy.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: In **Germany**, faculty belong to a special class of civil servants known as *Beamter* and the positions they hold are categorized according to the labels they are given in the pay system for the civil servants: W1, W2, and W3, respectively.
* W1 positions are always untenured positions that may offer a tenure-track option and correspond to assistant professorships in the US. In some states, after a positive interim evaluation, they are eligible to be the supervisor of record for a thesis defense. Since three years is typically the minimum time needed for a PhD, this basically means a W1 professor can begin supervising students as soon as she is hired. The position is normally term-limited to six years, but this can be extended by the university.
* W2 professorships vary; some are term-limited while others may be permanent; they are the “associate” professors of Germany. They are functionally the same in terms of duties and responsibilities in most states, but how the position is reckoned in terms of providing budget support from the university differs. Some universities count W2’s and others don’t, resulting in significant differences in the level of budget support.
* W3 positions carry the most responsibility and correspond to the US full professor. They receive the lion’s share of funding and support, and some of the “chairs” or “institutes” they oversee can have dozens or even hundreds of researchers. To some extent they can be closer to CEO’s than faculty, except for the requirement of direct contact hours with students giving lectures and overseeing research. (Typically, they may have teaching loads of 12 to 15 contact hours per week.)
There are also other positions within the system known as *außerplanmäßige Professoren* that correspond to adjuncts and lecturers, but they do not have lifetime appointments.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_14: In the United Kingdom, the terminology is different from the US:
* Senior lecturer (equivalent to associate professor)
* Lecturer or clinical lecturer (equivalent to assistant professor)
For more details, see [here](https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/uk-academic-job-titles-explained).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/21 | 1,656 | 7,234 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm working with a group in China, and we were discussing the following question, which I would like to ask here too:
>
> **Question**: Is it better to write a paper in Chinese, then translate it into English, than to write it in English to begin with?
>
>
>
Of course, this question is not limited to Chinese.
Both myself, and the (Chinese) professors in the group I work with felt rather strongly that writing in English to begin with is better. However, we didn't manage to articulate any tangible reason as to why we feel this way (mostly just out of intuition). Hopefully the group here can offer some meaningful insight one way or the other.
*Note*: I'm sure if I leave out the specific context, I'll receive a comment asking for it. So, in our case, the context was students writing technical scientific research papers (in computer science).<issue_comment>username_1: As a non-native English speaker myself, I've faced similar situations during my PhD. Some pros/cons of writing not in English, and then translating.
**Pros**:
* If you're working with people who don't speak English very well, it can make it easier for them to write in their native language first, so that they can focus on explaining the idea, rather than trying to find a correct vocabulary.
* You might be able to publish the work twice: once for a Chinese-speaking conference (or journal) and another time in English.
* If you plan to have this paper read by undergraduate students later on, then it might be easier for them to understand it if it's in their native language.
**Cons**:
* This is a waste of time, since you're basically working on the same thing twice.
* Translating is hard, in general, and speaking two languages does not necessarily make you a good translator. In practice, it might give a structure, but you might have to rewrite entirely each paragraph.
* If you're working with people who aim at staying in academia, they they need to be able to write directly in English. It's hard in the beginning, but it gets much easier with time and practice.
* It could make complicated any external collaboration (I've been collaborating with some people who write their papers in English, but their comments and ideas in another language, it was really frustrating).
* It's probably a subjective perception, but I think that a paper is not only a technical idea, it should also be an interesting piece of work to read. It might be specific to CS (I don't have the same feeling when talking with people in maths), but I feel that we're already reading A LOT of papers (probably due to the multiplication of conferences/journals in CS), and at some point, it becomes harder to focus on those that are not pleasant to read. The best way to make your paper pleasant to read is to think it in English from the beginning.
Note that in the Cons, I assumed that you would translate the paper yourselves, and that you're not particularly trained for translating technical documents. Of course, that would be quite different if you were to delegate the translation to some professionals.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As a native English speaker working in a country of non-native English speakers, I come from a slightly different perspective than Charles. I've also done some translations of abstracts (from English to French, although arguably this isn't so advisable, since I'm not a native French speaker—but being the only option in the company makes for little choice).
Based on my collective experiences in the last few years, I agree with Charles's main point: if the paper is to be submitted in English, it should be written and commented on exclusively in English. Doing a bilingual job makes for a mess. I recently went through two proposals written "by committee." One was done exclusively in English; the other was a "mixed-language" proposal. The all-English proposal was not only finished faster, but it was easier to work on and understand. I think ultimately it was also a higher-quality proposal.
However, I do want to take exception to a point that Charles made: with respect to undergraduates, I believe that it is more codifying than assisting undergraduates to give them "natively written" materials, when the originals started out in another language. You cannot really do science in academia today without being able to communicate in English; getting experience in doing so—in all of its forms—is an essential part of the training process.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As a non-native English speaker myself, based on some experiences I recommend you to first write some drafts in your native language.
Yes, being able to directly think and write in English is a great skill and it is recommended, but if you are not mastered with this skill, it may evade you from writing down your ideas. For a paper, the cohesion of ideas is the first matter and the language is the second.
You don't need to write it completely in your own language, but you can use it to keep focused on your ideas and organize your paper (without being drifted by finding proper words), the flow of information, the reasons, arguments, etc. Then replace these sections with proper (not necessarily translation) paragraphs in English.
And till you don't write down your thoughts you are not sure of what is in your mind.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to existing answers, I would advise you to write in English from the beginning for two reasons:
* First, it is less effort. Your primary sources might indeed be mostly written in English. Translating these concepts from English to X, then reasonning about them in your mother tong, and then translating back from X to English is a lot of work. Yet if your brain reasons in English, you avoid two of previous three steps (both translations). And when you're drafting your paper, it is much easier to be able to compare your work with what is written in papers (i.e. English vs. English). Even if you might go more slowly at the beginning, it might still be more efficient.
Moreover some words/concepts or technical terms are not easily translatable. Reasonning in English only would help you keep clear and accurate ideas.
* Second, it's a two-in-one. Beeing fluent in English is often a required skill for any job. Using a pure-English workflow will thus also help you improve your English. By directly writing in English, you will also tend to use more idiomatic expression or sentences structures - i.e. write better English. Indeed, writing styles differ quite a lot among languages (e.g. German academic writings make an extensive use of passive voice, when English ones prefer short and simple sentences).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I have a pretty good level of English. However, my Spanish is way richer and I can elaborate ideas and concepts with deeper arguments and a more generous vocabulary.
If I need to prepare a short blog article or a Stack response, I just do it in English. But if I must write a long document, I use to think of it in Spanish to come up with better ideas.
Otherwise, I feel that the result is quite basic from a language point of view.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/07/21 | 1,182 | 4,918 | <issue_start>username_0: Are there any proven methods for keeping a computer science lab notebook? What sort of stuff goes into a CS lab notebook, and what notation is used? Are there any reliable [ELN methods](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_lab_notebook), preferably integrating with Git?
I want to keep a lab notebook that helps me keep a running narrative of my research as well as my programming, in the same way you would keep a natural science lab notebook. It would be handy to be able to write down what I'm doing as I'm programming, then when a bug mysteriously appears in the software, I can see the last time the software was working, see where the bug started, then read the running narrative in between to help figure out what is causing it.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't do CS specifically, but I do research in computational/mathematical Epidemiology, which similarly lacks a clear format for a "lab notebook" and where the electronic tools designed for something like chemistry and biology doesn't necessarily suit.
Honestly, I've tried a number of systems. A private Wiki, a variety of other electronic systems, etc. And when it came down to it, I went back to a traditional paper notebook.
I've ended up with a bound paper notebook where I keep notes about experiments and simulations being run, thoughts on direction for the project, and the occasional printout of results taped inside. This has, for me, worked far better than electronic systems.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I devised this method when trying to organize story ideas (as a side project). It (for me, at least) is adaptable to my robotics projects and Neural Net research.
The basics for are as follows:
1. Feeds
2. Phase 1 - [Discovery][Hacking]
3. Phase 2 - [New Frontiers][Learning]
4. Phase 3 - [Flagship][Publication]
"Feeds" is a Word Document containing... tweets. For example:
```
20180214_1322. Hyperbolic TanH is outperforming Sigmoid for the 2-input XOR.
```
I try to keep each one short and to the point. There are hundreds of them. If I think of something on the go, I type it in Google Keep on my phone and move it to the Feeds later. These include comments, observations, thoughts, opinions, expectations, and agenda items. If something requires later attention, I mark the line bold (to do). If I am looking for ideas, I scroll down through the file and mark "interesting" entries bold.
Phase 1 is the discovery or hacking phase. Here, I keep files documenting each beginning step. Example CAD drawings, initial literature, code that was "hacked-together," and short writings are kept here. During this phase, I figure out if a project is worth exploring, and often get my hands dirty.
Phase 2 is the learning and refining phase. In the event of a robot, all mistakes are documented. New code is created. Conference papers are prepared. Experiments are outlined. Characters are further developed.
Phase 3 is the publication or deployment phase. My robot is refined and ready for competition or "showing off." The book is now in the drafting phase to be presented to a publisher. A full research article, concluding a specific sub-area is research, is prepared for submission to IEEE.
The key, for me, is to name everything by the date it was originally created (meaning expansion from Feed to [whatever file is necessary]). If significant changes are made, create a new file. Sorting files by date would be OK for most, but I jump between clouds and operating systems too often, and this metadata is often lost. Significant versions of code are zipped away when seriously updated. Experiments (source code, raw output files, and Excel files) are zipped and dated accordingly.
Again, this is how I manage my projects and research. I imagine that a post-grad researcher would need to split these phases by each publication. The part I would recommend above all else to maintain is the Feeds. A chronological-order "change log" of all ideas, thoughts and changes has become indispensable to keeping things organized.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I use [Jupyter Notebooks](http://jupyter.org) as my (almost) all-in-one research environment. Jupyter is a locally-hosted webapp designed primarily to write code in a convenient interface in a web browser. The native language is Python, but there are [kernels for many languages.](https://github.com/jupyter/jupyter/wiki/Jupyter-kernels) Jupyter also supports writing text with Markdown and MathJax inline with your code. The notebooks can be exported as HTML, PDFs, slides, Markdown, .rst, or .tex files (especially useful when drafting papers for journals/conferences that provide a .cls file!). And because a notebook is stored as a plaintext JSON file, it's VCS friendly.
The next iteration, [JupyterLab](https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab), is currently in the late-stages of development and is in beta.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/07/22 | 1,165 | 4,843 | <issue_start>username_0: What do you do if after 6 years of being an assistant professor, you come up for, and are denied tenure?
How hard is it to get a job in industry, when you are middle aged and have no relevant work experience? How hard is it to get another job in academia? Who wants to hire someone who was denied tenure at their home institution?<issue_comment>username_1: As with anything, it depends:
>
> How hard is it to get a job in industry, when you are middle aged and
> have no relevant work experience?
>
>
>
Is that really true ? It of course depends, but academics even in very theoretical disciplines have skills of value to industry (witness for example the number of math PhDs getting jobs on Wall Street). Of course, if one presents oneself as having no relevant work experience, it's going to be very hard to find an industry job, but I question the premise. Maybe the right fit is not obvious, and maybe it will take some networking and talking to people to find the right niche, but it's more a matter of repositioning one's skills. It's easier said than done, but it's possible.
>
> How hard is it to get another job in academia? Who wants to hire
> someone who was denied tenure at their home institution?
>
>
>
I know of many people who get faculty jobs after being denied tenure elsewhere. Universities don't operate on the same scale or with the same criteria or needs. It might need some time (again) to reposition oneself, and it might require some digging into the circumstances leading to tenure denial in the first place (painful, but sometimes yielding useful information).
It's by no means a definite thing, but it can be done. It will take some time though, also because without a job, one lacks leverage to dangle in front of another institution.
p.s The question was asked in the abstract, and the answer is thus necessarily vague. The real point is that every case is different, and there are always ways to move forward, if not exactly in the direction one is hoping for.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I hope this has not already happened, but is only a *potential* concern.
Thus, I'd first address "how to *avoid* having this happen". As with failing oral prelims and such things, this results primarily from failed *communication* between the junior person and one or more relatively senior people. Ignoring for a moment department-politics-motivated tenure-vendettas, which do occur, departments are not collectively happy to deny tenure, since it reflects a kind of failure on their part, as well. Although the details of the expectations are different at "research universities" versus "small colleges", departments have *expectations*. Usually these expectations are communicated fairly clearly, although sometime not too forcefully or formally.
A pre-tenure person should have senior people to talk to about their situation in the department, about expectations, and about progress-so-far. Unfortunately, often there is no systematic implementation of this sort of mentor relationship, and the default is that the dept chair has a yearly talk with pre-tenure faculty. If this defaults further into an absolutely pro-forma, content-free interaction, there is potential danger, especially with a pre-tenure person who is oblivious to exactly these issues.
The worst cases I've witnessed, apart from those involving some political motivations, involved pre-tenure people who were surprisingly disconnected from the department in which they worked. Plausibly doing worthwhile work, but not interacting with local people.
Another kind of disconnection is that the pre-tenure person does receive fairly blunt advice from the dept chair, but decides to ignore it, as though some abstract notion of "virtue" would supercede the dept chair's recommendation!
Nevertheless, even if one *has* paid attention, it might be that one's research program just didn't *quite* measure up to hopes... Or there might be political/scientific shifts in the dept which (rightly or wrongly) marginalized your field/work "out from under you". In such cases, the external perception usually is fairly well informed, and the stigma is not too great, and there is hope for other academic opportunities.
If one *hasn't* paid attention, and, in some sense "rightly" was denied tenure, then this situation is externally understood, too, and it is in this case that one's academic prospects are dim.
Although I've had the good fortune to not need to look for non-academic employment, my several students who have deliberately (or due to vagaries of the job market, grudgingly) found non-academic positions emphasize that it's possibly not your specialized knowledge that you can "sell", but the point that you can learn very complicated things, and do things with them.
Upvotes: 5 |
2012/07/23 | 565 | 2,181 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been told to set up software to organize a workshop. Is there (preferably an open source) conference solution that allows for:
* Abstract Submission
* Event Planning
* Arbitrary user data-fields
Apparently managing "dietary requirements" is a really big deal for the organizers.<issue_comment>username_1: According to the developer, the non-free version of easychair can support something like this:
>
> We have a similar functionality in the registration module (non-free).
> All your requirements are related to conference registration, not to
> paper submission.
>
>
>
However, the "registration module" is very difficult to find.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You can use [OpenConf](http://www.openconf.com/) for your purpose. It is free but you have to buy license for upgraded features. Going through the demo, it seems impressive. Bear in mind that you have to host this on your event website.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_1: **[Open conference systems](http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ocs)** supports a nuanced registration module.
While arbitrary checkboxes are not supported out of the box, there is an area for "optional registration types" which we have repurposes into an area for us to track the various optional things we need.
The rest of the system supports abstract management and scheduling.
Also, this [forum post](http://pkp.sfu.ca/support/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6310&p=34232&hilit=registration#p34232) has literal instructions of how to hack registration.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I just found out the existence of [Indico](http://indico-software.org/), an open-source conference management software developed at CERN for their own needs. I have just played with the sandbox for now, but it seems impressive.
EDIT: six years later, I have used Indico as an organizer for two small conferences and as a user for 3-4 more. I confirm that it is powerful and simple to use; for my needs (in applied mathematics) it seems the best choice. I confirm it supports [custom fields](https://indico.docs.cern.ch/conferences/registration_config/) in registration, in particular, as OP requested.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/23 | 1,483 | 5,725 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a nightmare adviser, who is also the head of the Department. The problems are:
1. he has too many students,
2. never reads my chapters,
3. he is trying his best to sabotage TA or RA opportunities that are my only source of funding,
4. he discourages me from attending conferences, and
5. refuses to introduce me to anyone in his network.
The worst thing is that I am an international student in the social sciences in Germany where professors have too much power, and there is no system of redress.
I have a second supervisor from another university, but he does not want to get involved as he is not the primary adviser.
I am three years into the program and have a nearly completed thesis. Without his comments on my chapters, I fear that I will end up with a lower grade (PhDs are graded here) which marks an end to my academic career. I was the top student in the Masters program and that is why I was offered a fully funded PhD. My adviser was very happy with me until I spoke to him about trying for a job in Germany or in Europe. Since then he is distant because I think he expected me to go back to my Third World country and create links for him.
* What can I do?
* Should I drop this PhD and apply for another one in the US or Canada? (I am not sure he will give me a recommendation)
* Should I complete this PhD in a multi-disciplinary field (Global Studies/Global Integration) and start another one in a related discipline such as Political Science or Geography or another traditional discipline, in Canada or the US?
* Should I apply for post docs and hope he will give me a recommendation?
Any other ideas. Please help. I am severely depressed.<issue_comment>username_1: Do you only have a single supervisor? In Sweden, we always have at least a primary and a secondary supervisor. I know some people where the primary supervisor has little time, and the secondary supervisor(s) actually spend a lot more time in helping out. If it's for publishing a paper, you could offer co-authorship to other faculty if they can contribute to helping/advising on the paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I have questions for you.
Your (1): "he has too many students."
Why would you be bothered? Is it because he is too busy to pay attention to you? If so, why (3) (sabotage)?
Your (4) and (5): "he discourages me from attending conferences", and
"refuses to introduce me to anyone in his network."
Can you talk to your secondary adviser to help you? Do you really need your primary adviser to introduce you to people? Do you need his approval to attend conferences?
Your (3) "he is trying his best to sabotage TA or RA opportunities that are my only source of funding" is a problem. You need funding to support your study. I am not familiar with German. Can you find a job somewhere to support yourself? Would it have to be TA or RA?
Your true problem is (2) "never reads my chapters." You need him to finish your dissertation. For that, you need to talk to him.
I do believe there are some serious misunderstandings between you and your adviser. Generally speaking, a student and his adviser are on the same side. Do you believe he would be proud of your failure? I would like to tell you this, if you fail, he fails, too.
I would urge you to have a sincere talk to him. Tell him what you want to achieve. Tell him what you'll do and where you will be after you get your PhD is really your own decision. Ask what he thinks of you and what kind of problems he thinks you are having so that you can improve yourself. Maybe he thinks you have not done research in depth enough so your chapters are not ready yet. So on and so forth. Once you two can have an open talk and clear up the misunderstandings, it will be a happy ending.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I am three years into the program and have a nearly completed thesis. Without his comments on my chapters, I fear that I will end up with a lower grade (PhDs are graded here) which marks an end to my academic career.
>
>
>
You won't miss anything. Trust me.
>
> I was the top student in the Masters program and that is why I was offered a fully funded PhD. My adviser was very happy with me until I spoke to him about trying for a job in Germany or in Europe. Since then he is distant because I think he expected me to go back to my Third World country and create links for him.
>
>
>
Which third world country ?
>
> What can I do? Should I drop this PhD and apply for another one in the US or Canada?
>
>
>
No. You are too far in the thing to pull out. Complete it, get the money and the title, and then reconsider your path. Career is not something you pursue, it's something that happens. There's nothing wrong with it, and academia is not that paradise so that you will miss it.
>
> Any other ideas. Please help. I am severely depressed.
>
>
>
If you are depressed as in depression, seek medical help. If you are in a bad mood, just finish and look for something else. Life is more than that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: My 2 cents :
1. Graduate as soon as possible, The fact that this is with high or low grades is not relevant here
2. Apply for a postdoc position in a place where PhDs are not graded (France for instance)
3. Publish the (very good) stuff that you intentionally kept hidden until your graduation
After step 3 your record will be clean, and all this "hell stuff" will be far from you. To obtain a position in academy, the only thing that matters is the quality of your research (that can be seen in the papers) and of your teaching (for that you requires references), nobody will care about what happen during your PhD.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/07/23 | 875 | 3,664 | <issue_start>username_0: When a committee is evaluating applicants for a permanent academic position (such as a Lecturer or Assistant Prof. position), do they select the best candidate in the absolute, or do they relativize with the corresponding experience?
Consider for instance two applicants, one who just graduated from her PhD, and the other with 10 years of postdoc experience (for the sake of the example, let's assume that both are "regular" applicants, i.e., none of them is a exceptionally good or bad). Clearly, in general, the second applicant will have many more publications, grants, etc, than the first one.
In that case, will the committee judge them by relativizing the CV of the second one by stating like only the number of publications per year counts, not the total one, or say that the second one has a better CV in the absolute, and therefore is better?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there's a single answer to this question. Ultimately, departments look for the candidate who will be the best fit for a given position, and for the department as a whole. If you also subscribe to the view that the department would rather choose a candidate who is more likely to accept a given position, then that also changes the decision calculus.
For the most part, however, I don't think hiring committees are doing "hard" comparisons of citations; that would just be foolish. Grant-winning experience also does matter, obviously, but that's also something that can be learned and developed over time.
So, ultimately, hiring tends to be a subjective process—you can view the data in whatever "objective" light helps you get to the conclusion you want.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I can speak for France.
We do relativize the application with the corresponding experience. In fact this is sometimes easier for the "younger" applicant to have a junior position since after a while, the committee expect someone with a lot of experience to have shown more than the ability to conduct research. To tell the truth, if you apply for a junior position with 6 years of postdoc, I will find suspicious that you was not hired before, and ask about that issue. Similarly, if you have 6 years of experience and if you never led a team or had a grant, I will find that highly suspicious (and so will be the rest of the committee).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In the U.S., currently, the usual "tenure guidelines" as well as surrounding department policies in math departments, mostly create pretty narrow windows for competition. For example, "post-doc" positions are only open to those within 1-2 years of Ph.D., tenure-track assistant prof spots for people less than 6-or-so years out. Already-tenured hires are a much smaller fraction of all hires, I think.
Yes, there is the point that someone 10 years out is considered perhaps-essentially-ineligible for merely tenure-track, not *tenured*, positions. This arose originally as a device to protect junior people from being strung along indefinitely without tenure. But, through the obvious process, now it is essentially against HR rules to hire anyone "too far post-PhD" without tenure.
Thus, the relevant "competitions" are between not-too-disparate populations: people 3 years post-PhD and those perhaps 6 or 7 years post-PhD. Certainly these are looked at in relative terms. If anything, the more-years-out people are looked at more critically, because they really have had an opportunity to get their research program going, while someone just 2 years out could understandably still be getting their first papers through peer-review, etc.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/23 | 1,609 | 6,568 | <issue_start>username_0: Question : Should my advisor know if I am auditing unrelated courses?
Motivation : I am a PhD student in Computer Science and at times, I wish to audit courses which are not at all related to my thesis or research.
For instance:
* For Fun : Italian Food and Art
* For probable post-PhD jobs (but not related to thesis) - Econometrics, Quantitative Finance.
In general, my advisor is cool and won't mind the hour(s) I spend in the classroom. He allows me to work from home or wherever and doesn't care about "seeing" me in my office so long as I keep doing my work on time (which I do).
If I tell him about the courses, he unnecessarily might get freaked or worried and might question my intentions (which I can obviously clarify), If I don't it seems as if I am keeping something important from him.<issue_comment>username_1: In this case, you should let your advisor know, because the time spent in the classroom is time not spent in the lab. Since he's paying you for your time, if you will be doing daytime activities that will take time away from research he has a right to know about it. On a different note, depending on how auditing works in your university, there may be costs associated with your auditing the course, and he (or his grant) would be covering these costs.
Generally speaking, the more communication between you and your advisor, the better.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You should definitely tell your advisor about the potentially job related courses. As for the fun courses, if they are at your university and/or taught during regular working hours (9-5), you should tell him. If the courses are outside regular working hours and at a different school, then it is up to you. In either case, I would suggest telling him. These are the personal details that don't make anyone uncomfortable.
If your advisor is going to have an issue with you taking courses, you are better off knowing right off the bat.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In general, what you do in your "off-duty" hours are not subject to your advisor's wishes. So long as you're getting your job done, and are not using group resources to carry out those other activities, then what you do is your own concern.
However, if you're doing it during the daytime, or doing it for credit, then you should definitely let your advisor know. This is especially true of things related to your research program, as he or she may have helpful hints or suggestions about what is the right set of courses to take.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As far as I can tell, having pursuits and interests that are fun and relaxing and not-research are helpful to one's continued sanity and (research-)productivity. Since your work isn't suffering and if you're not spending excessive amounts of time on these pursuits, why not just mention it to your advisor? It might be nice for them to see you as an individual with varied interests as opposed to a research-doing machine.
As for job-related classes, perhaps there is a worry that your advisor wants you to go into academia but you want to say, go into industry - perhaps your additional classes are geared towards the industry side and you don't want your advisor to know about them as a result. In this case, I would say that it's better to just let your advisor know your intentions. If there is no discrepancy between the two of you about the courses being beneficial to your future, then letting your advisor know you're spending time and effort bolstering your background and knowledge sounds like a very positive thing to me!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Just let them know! It's okay to be in pursuit of knowledge or hobby but DON'T let it interfere with your research. See, you can take everything from Physics to Fine art and everything in between but at what cost? You will spend more money and more time to complete your username_5 and it won't be worth it. The charm is for the first few years/semesters, but when the research takes over and you start loving what you do, you won't find time for other courses.
Your auditing unrelated courses is for your "personal gratification" only and doesn't help your advisor. It's okay to do it sometimes, but keep it at a minimum. For example, I love fine art and thought of auditing a fine art course. It won't cost my advisor and will only be for 1 hour per week in the evenings. I've never got around to doing it! I love my research and spend a lot of time working on that - so much so that my hobby can be put on hold.
Be sure you understand what is being lost and what is being gained - it should be valuable in some form or the other. If it keeps you sane, then a course once in a while is fine. But if you are auditing a lot more, you are going to take a longer time to do your Phd and when you look back you'll realize that you could've done with it.
Whatever you do TELL your advisor - they are your friends (most of the times :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Just a paraphrase of some other remarks: you should not get into the habit of thinking that your employer/boss "owns" you, or has priority to *all* your time.
It may be that you and your boss began the relationship with some explicit or implicit understanding, say, that M-F 8-5 your time *is* their time, maybe with an hour for lunch. Or, starting down a slippery slope, perhaps it's 60 hours per week, or even understood that there's no upper limit? That "the larger enterprise" takes precedence? That people who "sacrifice everything now will be rewarded later"?
Although there's non-trivial content there, it is unwise to "buy" that propaganda too easily. For one thing, very few people are able to function at a high level more than a handful of hours in a day. The usual "40-hour workweek" is not predicated on \_high\_level\_ function every minute of that time.
At the same time, yes, some of us are aware that we are just messing around, or just fretting, or just hanging out at the coffee machine, or water cooler, or... That this happens surprises no one, especially with confusing, large-scale projects where the novices participating find it very hard to understand what they're supposed to be doing.
Nevertheless, your employer does not own you, and does not have a claim to all your waking hours.
Yes, your demonstration of commitment to your employer/advisor/mentor's goals makes a positive impression on them. Self-deprivation is not the same as constructive work! Some sort of false converse. :)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/23 | 1,889 | 7,959 | <issue_start>username_0: How much of a disadvantage are you if you are not a US citizen, but want to enter American academia? It seems Americans have lots of advantages starting early, including NSF graduate fellowships, continuing with more access to DARPA money, US-citizen specific awards like PECASE, etc.<issue_comment>username_1: True, *some* federal funding of grad students in the US is restricted to US citizens or permanent residents, but, in mathematics, most funding of grad students is as TAs (=Teaching Assistant) supporting lower-division mathematics courses.
The question of *admission* itself is mostly separate from federal citizenship requirements. Let me explain some things an admission committee wonders about, statistically, at least, about international applications, that would not be relevant to an applicant already in the US and with no visa issues:
1. **It turns out that quite a few applicants simply want to get to the U.S.,** in effect as informal political asylum, while having limited genuine interest in mathematics, and this creates visa and other complications subsequently. I have no objection to fairly open immigration policies, but I *do* object to adding that noise to applications to our graduate program.
2. Given that the bulk of funding is as TAs, **problems with *understanding* colloquial spoken English** cannot be taken lightly. This isn't about "cultural bias", but about the practical features of teaching in this environment.
3. **Minimum funding to generate visa papers:** The INS (U.S. "Immigration and Naturalization Services", which controls visas of non-US-citizens) mandates that we promise a certain annual stipend for international grad students... ok... except that that number is several thousand dollars above what the university sets as the ceiling for standard stipends. Not hard to imagine the craziness and injustices this leads to.
Edit: Theoretically, the university is not necessarily responsible for guaranteeing the (needlessly high) minimum, but different universities develop policies designed to keep them at some safe distance from "trouble with INS", and sometimes/often such policies create complications not originally intended, and not due directly to INS. (Also, interpretations and policies drift over years, and I'm refering to a situation from a few years ago...)
4. **International students demand resources for their spouses.** We have repeatedly "discovered" that an admitted international student is married, "needs" a visa for a spouse, the spouse needs admission to something, etc. It is easy to understand the desperation that leads to such situations, but it also corrupts things, and absorbs resources.
Edit: Yes, if things are done right, as noted in comments, it "should not be" the university's responsibility to "take care of" other family members. Nevertheless, for reasons I do not fully understand, it somehow has come to this on many occasions. (The quasi-legal details are mercifully slipping from my mind! :)
5. **Many other college-university cultures have a hugely different emphasis on problem-solving versus memorization, and relation of teacher and student.** Thus, although in one sense the U.S. system generates the weakest outcomes *in specialty*, because of all the other required coursework for "breadth", the balance of demands, and the goals, of upper-division coursework is mostly compatible with what happens at the beginning of grad school. Further, the less structured parts of the rest of grad school have counterparts in some undergrad projects. In contrast, we have found that several other traditions give students not prototype whatsoever for coping with ambiguity, and this can lead to strange crises well into a PhD.
Edit: Again, not to be claiming that all non-USA programs are the same! For this last point, let's say "traditions which emphasize memorization and reciting, of definitions, theorems, proofs, and examples", as opposed to problem-solving as at least *a* component of activities. It seems that getting into the habit of thinking that there is a "sacred canon" of results, even perhaps including wording, is not a good habit of mind. Similarly, an exaggerated impulse of "following orders" or "compliance", while a habit highly rewarded in some situations, is *not* so much the desired methodology after the very beginning of grad school. Thus, success in a prior situation may be misleading *to a student*, when further adaptation and growth is needed.
---
Don't misunderstand me: I understand how such things come about. Nevertheless, with limited resources, not only money but energy to help people get in sync with their responsibilities as grad students, there is a serious question about how to allocate. Thus, we can capsulize this by saying that grad school applicants from within the US system are more "known quantities", are already fairly in-sync with the system, are cheaper dollar-wise, *and* are rarely or never under the threat of returning in disgrace to a genuinely dangerous situation in their home country if we stop renewing their TA!
A small further edit: At a university receiving state funds (although this amount is ever-decreasing), the state legislature, and the electorate, take the viewpoint that the university has an obligation to give priority to students from the region, if not literally the state, and to serve the state's and region's goals. This has become less idealistic during economic downturns, unsurprisingly.
Edit: in response to some comments... I certainly do not claim that "all" non-USA undergrad programs are the same, "bad", etc., nor that all in-USA programs are "good". At the same time, I didn't want to single out specific traditions for criticism. And, certainly, applicants in the U.S. can easily "achieve" weaknesses for no particular reason. As I understood the question, it was inquiring about the realities of the situation, advantages that in-USA applicants *tend to have* over not-in-USA, at least in the minds of admissions committees.
I do not think literal xenophobia or cultural bias plays any role in admissions, in case people wonder. If anything, the generally stronger undergrad prep of people from non-USA programs has created a "bias" *against* US students on that criterion alone. The practical and prosaic considerations mentioned above diminish post-PhD, so that "nationality" plays no detectable role in post-doc hiring or tenure-track hiring. (For that matter, examination of the faculty at most "research" universities shows a pretty international population!)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: At the grad level in CS, fully 80% of admitted students in most universities (funded or otherwise) are from foreign countries. So any department that prefers domestic students is going to have a tough time attracting students :). There are numerous funding opportunities limited only to domestic students - in addition to the ones you list, the IGERT funding program is specifically for domestic students, but it's to encourage more domestic students to go to grad school.
At the postdoc level, visa requirements can make selecting a foreign student a little tricky but not impossible.
At the faculty level, I am not aware of any issues involving hiring non-US citizens. In our last round, we hired Chinese, Croatian, Turkish, and South African researchers !
It is true that DARPA money can be limited to US citizens, but in CS before tenure, this is not necessarily a bad thing :). It gives you an excuse NOT to go after DARPA funding which can be very difficult to get and even worse if you get it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd say none , actually since the high-school system in the United States is an absolute disaster you might have an advantage . This really depends on you though , when did you start learning English , how comfortable are you in a conversation with native speakers , etc .
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/07/23 | 786 | 3,187 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a rewrite of a question that was perhaps-naively posed. I rephrase...
What file formats are ok/good/ideal/common/long-term-viable/archivable/useful for research papers?
And, also, there's the history-question:
What is the story of viable file-formats in the last 20+ years?<issue_comment>username_1: Many people know what I'll say here, but I thought the re-format of the situation was appropriate...
For mathematics and "hard" sciences, PDF (portable document format) is absolutely standard now. Until a few years ago, PS (postscript) and DVI (device independent) formats were typical, but no more.
In mathematics, "Word" format was never common.
Currently, traditional (meaning various things) mathematics journals want a PDF file to send to referees. Everyone has software that can convert PostScript files to PDF, and so on. In fact, "OpenOffice", for example, can convert/export "Word" files to PDF.
So, in sciences, PDF, though "Word" may be forgivable.
The question of future readability of these or any other file formats is hugely non-trivial. (Similarly, kids-these-days, such as my almost-20 daughter, have great difficulty reading "cursive writing" of "old" people. :)
So: modulo issues that the original questioner can't afford to worry about, the current answer is "PDF, and tolerance for Word files, esp. from the humanities...".
The long-term answer about survivable file-formats... is troubling. :)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: binary/plain text
Other things to consider (for the future) is the movement towards standard meta-data items contained with the research articles (e.g. structured abstracts, specific research repositories, meta-analyses), and supplemental material for reproducible analysis. These suggest to me the conversation should likely include more than one data file.
IMO we can be more imaginative than word or pdf files. For instance open access journals frequently have everything right there in html on the page. I even think this idea [for a fast journal](http://yihui.name/en/2012/03/a-really-fast-statistics-journal/) by <NAME> using markdown for revisions and compiling to html is a good idea.
This is forward thinking though. Realistic constraints force collaborations to work with WYSIWYG file formats and PDF *for writing* because such behavior has not permeated enough in many fields (although for exceptions in some fields that extensively write in Latex see Jeffe's comment below). That may change in the future though, especially if journals adapt submission standards that encourage such actions.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: **plain text/markup language**
For mathematics, I think TeX/LaTeX is the way to go. This is the standard way to write papers in nearly all areas of math (perhaps not biomath, where collaborators necessitate Word), so there's little extra cost. One advantage of this approach is that it's easy to automate outputting in almost any format you want. Furthermore, as new formats develop, we will almost certainly develop tools to convert TeX source to these new formats. The arXiv is a great example of this model.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/24 | 829 | 3,421 | <issue_start>username_0: Being a professor at the top university in your field must be a very different experience from being a professor at a top 20 university, which must be a very different experience from working at a top 100, 500, etc. university.
But how do these jobs differ? What are the qualitative differences between working at universities in different tiers? I'm less interested in pay and benefits -- more interested in the day to day experience.<issue_comment>username_1: My guess is that with research universities the ranking is not going to matter much in terms of the overall experience. At all research universities you teach, do research, and do service. The relative amounts vary, but I don't think it is strongly correlated with ranking within research universities. The quality of the students and colleagues and the available resources will have some affect on the experience, but in my opinion the personal work environment is much more important to the experience.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: (Since I've only been faculty in one department, my answer involves a bit of extrapolation...)
* **Quality of students** — It is much easier for top departments to attract the strongest students to their PhD programs, so the average quality of students tends to be higher. Faculty at top schools can spend less time bringing their PhD students up to speed and more time interacting with them as mature colleagues. This has a big impact on the productivity, research quality, and enjoyment of the faculty. (Of course, the strongest students are not all concentrated in the top few departments.)
* **Quality of faculty** — Similarly, it is much easier for top departments to attract the top faculty in their respective subfields, so the average quality of faculty tends to be higher. Again, this has a big impact on productivity, research quality, and quality of life. (Again, the strongest researchers are not all concentrated in the top few departments.)
* **Rock star culture** — See my previous answer about the [benefits of being a PhD student in a top department](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90/university-rank-stature-how-much-does-it-affect-ones-career-post-ph-d/154#154). The same comments apply to faculty in top departments. *Of course* everyone publishes in the top conferences and journals. *Of course* every assistant professor gets a CAREER award. *Of course* everyone has a few best paper awards. *Of course* everyone sends their PhD students to academic positions in top departments. *Of course* the faculty got another umpty-dozen-million dollars in grant money this year. That's not exceptional at top places; that's just normal business. That assumption of excellence is both incredibly powerful and incredibly stressful, just as it is for students. Impostor Syndrome is rampant.
* **Center of the world** — Top departments are more likely to attract the best researchers to visit, either as informal collaborators or as formally invited speakers. This opens up many more avenues for collaboration.
* **Administrative support** — Because top departments are well-funded, they tend to have more administrative resources. For example, my business office (paid entirely by "indirect costs" from grants) takes care of *all* the financial and administrative details in my grant proposals, letting me concentrate entirely on the 15-page narrative.
Upvotes: 5 |
2012/07/24 | 449 | 2,000 | <issue_start>username_0: Google Scholar is making it very easy to track (their measure of) citation counts, h-index, etc. for individual researchers. Is this changing how academics are evaluated? Do tenure committees now bring up google scholar profiles, or do they continue to prefer other sources for citation data? Is there pressure to make your Google Scholar profile public?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, promotion and hiring committees look at Google Scholar, especially in fields like computer science where Google's citation data is more comprehensive than other sources like Scopus, which misses many citations of and by conference papers. In this respect, Google Scholar hasn't really changed the way people are evaluated, though; we've just replaced one unreliable (and expensive) source of questionable statistical data with a slightly less unreliable (and free) source for almost (but not quite) the same data.
Much more importantly, though, Google Scholar makes it easier to find electronic copies of papers, which makes it easier for committees to judge each candidate's work directly. In this respect, Google Scholar has had a significant impact.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Since the criteria is the same (citation count, H-index, G-Index...) I think *Google Scholar* is not changing anything, just making much easier to find/evaluate; therefore it might have a considerable impact.
But should be noted that, due to many errors like mixing authors with similar names and counting citations that shouldn't be counted, *Google Scholar* can't be used as a definitive source of evaluation.
Recently I have found [Microsoft Academic Search](http://academic.research.microsoft.com) more useful.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: At my place, people who are doing well have public Google Scholar profiles, while those who shouldn't and probably wouldn't get tenured hide their profiles, probably because their publication — and thus citation — records stink.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/07/24 | 590 | 2,668 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose I want to get letter of recommendation for a PhD program. Could this letter be from someone not from my institution? Could is be from someone I have collaborated with online? Or generally do schools want recommendations from professors from a student's home institution?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally if it’s for a PHD program they want letters of recommendations from a professor .
It depends on the program though, so it’s better to ask the admissions office at the school your applying to .
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: A letter of recommendation absolutely does not have to be from someone at your university. It *should* be from someone you have collaborated with. In general, a letter of recommendation will be most valuable if:
1. It can speak to your potential as a researcher: letters from supervisors of research projects are much more valuable than letters from people who have only had you in class
2. It is written by someone well known in the field that you are attempting to enter. When this person says you have potential to be a researcher, it is much more credible if they have experience working with excellent researchers in the field.
3. It is written by someone who knows you well. They should be able to point to specific things you have done with them, specific conversations you have had, specific ideas you have had.
You should pick your letter writers by seeing how well they optimize these three properties. It won't matter if they are at your home institution or not. The only reason not to get a letter from "someone you have collaborated with online" is if they don't satisfy these criteria. In particular, I might be concerned that they don't know you well enough if you have never met them.
That being said, it might raise a red flag if *none* of your letter writers are from your home institution. But if you have one of these, that should be enough.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Schools want a letter that demonstrates that you are a smart, hardworking individual, whose presence will be a net gain for the program specifically and the university generally. In most cases, the people most able to write such a letter are from the institution where you received your undergraduate (or masters, as the case may be) degree. These people have interacted with you in a classroom (and possibly research) setting, and they know you well enough to write a good letter.
To that extent, if there is another individual—with stature enough to be recognized by an academic institution (i.e., a professor or recognized researcher)—who can write such a letter, that's fine.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/24 | 349 | 1,282 | <issue_start>username_0: We're thinking of starting a journal for undergraduate research. I'm vaguely aware that some electronic journals have a 'print on demand' capability, so that someone who wants a printed bound copy can get one. Can anyone point me to a journal that does this?<issue_comment>username_1: It hasn't begun operating yet, but Cambridge University Press's [Forum of Mathematics](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=3896#.UA74BTGe66A) will work that way. The journal will launch later in 2012.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think American Journal of Neuroradiology does this yet, but here is [an editorial](http://www.ajnr.org/content/30/1/1.full) from their Editor-in-Chief, discussing the merits of such a system.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_1: Journals of the American Diabetes Association (found this through the second hit via Google):
<http://www.diabetesjournals.org/site/misc/AdvertisingRates.xhtml>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: According to their [website](http://www.e-jams.org/), the "Journal of Academy of Medical Sciences, a publication of Osmania Medical College, is a peer-reviewed online journal with Quarterly print on demand compilation of issues published."
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/24 | 1,105 | 3,901 | <issue_start>username_0: Romantic relationships between faculty members and students are often depicted in movies or books, and the student falling in love with his/her professor seems to be a bit of a cliché. But how common are such relationships in practice?<issue_comment>username_1: I've found a rather old survey (1982) of <NAME>, <NAME> and <NAME> that claimed
>
> Of the 184 respondents (59.8% female and 41.2% male), over
> one-third of both sexes reported flirting with their instructors,
> while 46% of females and 32% of males felt that instructors had
> flirted with them.
>
>
>
Flirting is, of course, is not the same as a romantic relationship. <NAME> and <NAME> (1997) survey earlier studies of the sexual relations between faculty and students:
>
> in a survey of 807 male faculty, Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold, and
> Ormerod (1988) found that 26% of the 235 respondents reported
> having sexual encounters with students; in a similar study of
> 483 male and female psychology professors, Tabachnick,
> Keith-Spiegel, and Pope (1991) obtained a rate of 11%. Although
> there was a considerable difference in these rates no doubt in part
> due to the inclusion of female faculty in the second survey -
> both indicate that sexual encounters between faculty and their
> students are commonplace on our campus
>
>
>
One [notable example](http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/a-law-school-love-story-prominent-professor-marries-columbia-3l/) is the marriage of Professor <NAME> (Princeton (A.B.), Yale (J.D.), and Oxford (Ph.D.)) and <NAME>,Columbia Law School graduate.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't have references and statistics, but I know of one MIT PhD who later married their advisor and now they are both tenured faculty in the same department. They did divorce later in life, but that doesn't seem to have outwardly affected their working relationship.
Nobody talks about it much; it seems like a nonissue, although perhaps it was different before the dust settled. She never changed her name, so you probably wouldn't know they'd ever been married if you weren't close enough to know they have teenage children together.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the closing votes are because of the statistics and the "notable examples" the OP wants, but this is an important ethical and psychological issue specific to academia.
With regard to the issue, I came across [this paper](http://ojs.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/pes/article/download/2132/827) by [<NAME>](http://education.illinois.edu/epol/people/crh4) published in 1998. One key issue seems to be the age difference between the teacher and the student. The second point is the drama it creates in the mind of the student, which is supposed to be focused on learning.
>
> We [teachers] should be responsive to the fact that one of our students is going through a drama that will affect her learning and ought to be heeded in the handling of the relationship. This does not mean that we should treat a student’s avowal of love as something which calls for a life decision on our part. To do that would be to respond in kind and to lose sight of the fact that classrooms are in part like the playground of the analytic situation, a place in which we can express ourselves without every utterance leading to immediate action. When someone is in process, and you have devoted yourself to witnessing and facilitating that process, you are wary to treat as definitive any one version of the evolving being before you.
>
>
>
It is unlikely that faculty members at graduate schools will be punished for just having a romantic relationship. But frequent problems in romantic life will surely be noted by colleagues and some curb be introduced when the academic pursuits of the prof suffer heavily.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/25 | 1,397 | 6,037 | <issue_start>username_0: The quality of articles in Wikipedia has grown tremendously in the last few years. A "good article" requires a big list of necessities, including coherence, readability, comprehensiveness and credible references. As such contributing technical articles requires academic merit, good explaining skills and mastery of the subject.
* How much value is being accorded to doctorates' contributions to Wikipedia during faculty recruitment?
* Since, on paper, a Wikipedia article should exposit an article lucidly to a (relative) fresher in the field, can Wikipedia contributions be taken as a partial measure of one's teaching abilities?
* How effectively could one list his/her Wikipedia contributions?<issue_comment>username_1: I have never heard of any weight given to contributing to Wikipedia for any aspects of academic evaluation. I personally wouldn't attach any weight to it either, especially given that many articles have a long history of edits and figuring out exactly who contributed what can be difficult.
If you want to include this on your CV or similar, I would mention it under "Misc." or "Other" or something like that. If you have made significant contributions to other similar sites (e.g. stackoverflow) I would put that into the same paragraph. I would definitely avoid trying to make it appear as one of the major things you have done. Wikipedia is regarded rather suspiciously in general because it can be an unreliable source. While contributing to it could be a bonus, it won't be a significant one.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with Lars: contributions to Wikipedia will receive zero weight. It may even hurt you if you try and emphasize this too heavily on your CV, because it will suggest that you are attempting to compensate for lack of more traditional accomplishments.
If you want to get credit for expository writing, write survey articles, and try and get them published, or at least post them on arxiv. Survey articles also won't count very heavily as "publications", but will certainly count towards evaluating your skills as an expositor. A good survey article in a field lacking in one may accumulate many citations as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As an addendum to Lars's answer above, academics place a high value on peer-reviewed literature and professional activities (book chapters, conference proceedings, invited talks, professional workshops you've taught). Non-professional activities, such as being cited in the popular press and appearances on TV and radio shows are nice, but usually aren't big factors... such invitations are only given to those who are big in their field, which itself comes from professional activities and publications, so they're not needed to make a judgement. Personal activities such as volunteering in your community are simply measures of your character. Blog postings and Wikipedia editing would fall in that category for the reasons he states.
One area not mentioned is being the maintainer of a popular analysis/experimental package used by researchers (e.g., [MNE](http://www.martinos.org/mne/), [FieldTrip](http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/), [SPM](http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/), or [Psychtoolbox](http://psychtoolbox.org/HomePage); there are hundreds of others in different fields). These activities will be looked upon as being a contributing member of the community, and are nice to demonstrate, but ultimately have a small weight in the final decision.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Contributions to Wikipedia (or Stack Exchange) are best viewed as community service. Like other kinds of community service, **significant** and **sustained** contributions can have a positive effect on hiring and promotion decisions. The effect is not likely to be major, unless *maybe* your outreach efforts rival Ne<NAME>'s, but it won't be zero.
**Edit:** I have to agree with username_5's warning. Significant community service of any kind is best offered after tenure. Unfortunately, some people view significant service (or teaching) accomplishments as *prima facie* evidence of a lack of research focus. (Indeed, the case that I'm familiar with was a post-tenure promotion.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: There are definitely cases where Wikipedia contributions have helped someone's academic career (like [this one](http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/04/06/tenure-awarded-based-in-part-on-wikipedia-contributions/)). However, I think it's exceedingly rare at major research universities.
Once you have tenure, it's worth looking into this. Then your department is already stuck with you, and they are likely to be somewhat more flexible in evaluation. For example, full professor promotions can be quite a bit less rigorous than tenure cases, and they are sometimes approached from a perspective of "Professor X has been a good departmental citizen and put in their time. We want them to be promoted to full professor eventually, so what basis can we find for justifying the promotion?" (This can happen even in departments that would never consider approaching a tenure decision that way. The big difference is that people who don't get tenure leave, while people who are stuck as associate professors may hang around the department feeling bitter for decades.) If you've done some unusual community service, then that might be when the university decides to recognize it.
However, I'd be wary of doing more than briefly mentioning Wikipedia before tenure. It's just not respected or valued by many professors, so the downside is greater than the upside. A lot of hiring isn't based on totaling up some sort of abstract value for the different parts of the application. Instead, it's based on an overall feeling you create of being a desirable colleague. If anyone rolls their eyes and wonders why you waste your time on something, then that will actually hurt your chances. If 20% of the department reacts this way, you've got a real problem.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/26 | 3,043 | 12,679 | <issue_start>username_0: Many times I've attended and will attend international conferences presenting a poster in my life.
I used to think that this poster works have been considered less important than scientific papers or oral communications, but important anyway for scientific divulgation.
So, when presenting a poster, I've always been thinking: "Okay, it's not as important as a oral communication, but, if they accepted it, this means they found it interesting".
Then I read the ["Ten Simple Rules for a Good Poster Presentation"](http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030102) article by <NAME> and <NAME>, and I was pretty disappointed after reading point 4:
>
> Rule 4: Poster Acceptance Means Nothing
>
>
> Do not take the acceptance of a poster as an endorsement of your work.
> Conferences need attendees to be financially viable. Many attendees
> who are there on grants cannot justify attending a conference unless
> they present. There are a small number of speaking slots compared with
> attendees. How to solve the dilemma? Enter posters; this way everyone
> can present. In other words, your poster has not been endorsed, just
> accepted. To get endorsement from your peers, do good science and
> present it well on the poster.
>
>
>
Do you agree with this statement?
**What is the overall importance of a poster session during an international conference?**
Is is just a way to **collect subscriptions and money**, or is it an important occasion for **science divulgation**?
Thanks
***Edit:*** I'm speaking about poster session vs. oral session, I do know that a poster with presence is better than nothing. As <NAME> once said: *"The 80% of success is just showing up"* ;-)<issue_comment>username_1: I would guess that this depends on your *domain*. In computer science, talks at conferences present peer reviewed papers. Posters are also reviewed (e.g., [ICST 2011](https://sites.google.com/site/icst2011/posters), [SEFM 2010](http://www.sefm2010.isti.cnr.it/posters_call.php)). However, in my experience, there are not that many candidates submitting posters, i.e., the reviewing may be less stringent. At some conferences, posters are combined with, e.g., tool exhibitions and/or doctoral symposiums. Advanced PhD students are sometimes encouraged to prepare a poster and to give an overview of their work so far.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A poster session is a good way to *disseminate* your work: but it has nothing to do with how you get *credit* for your work.
Some computer science venues have moved to a model where papers are reviewed and accepted, but the vast majority of papers only get a poster presentation at the conference. Another model is where all accepted papers are invited to a poster session. So it really depends on your area and venue.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: My personal experience (atmospheric science / remote sensing) is that poster sessions have little significance. You can present your work, maybe you will have some interesting discussions with scientists or get interesting ideas from others. In my field, posters are not peer-reviewed and virtually always accepted, if not clearly off-topic or rejected for political reasons. For me, the main point of going to a small (<300 people) conference where I have only a poster is to be able to speak with famous scientists in my field (who of course have talks), do networking, etc.
My advice: do your best on your poster, make it informative and attractive (not too much text please!), but don't expect a huge attention or exposure. The conference consists of more, much more, than just the poster session where you present your work. Use the opportunity to be with senior scientists in your field!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Sometimes a poster session is better than an oral presentation due to time constraints in the latter. During a typical oral presentation you will have 10-15 minutes for questions and comments while a poster session lasts for few hours, allowing for more in-depth discussions.
Moreover, not all people will manage to make it to your oral presentation because there will probably be many panels running in parallel. Poster session will typically run after all oral presentations have been finished.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It might be better if things change in the direction of making "posters" and "poster sessions" have greater weight, but, at the moment, in "research" mathematics, I fear this is not so. (This does not deny that undergrad "research" is typically showcased in exactly this way.)
The questioner's potentially-cynical-sounding quoted "market analysis" is I think perfectly correct, if slightly exaggerated. That is, every enterprise "needs to" support itself, and this is typically by giving larger numbers of people the impression of participation.
I have no experience whatsoever of anyone in graduate admissions or post-doc hiring or... caring at all about any poster-session contribution. A "contributed talk" is also of essentially zero weight, exactly (as other answers mention, and the question anticipates) there's no filter (a.k.a. "peer review").
On the other hand, "doing things", as opposed to "not doing things", is a plus. Passivity and quietude are vastly less valued than activity, whether peer-reviewed or not. Ok, the market drives certain conceits, so don't be fooled by these, but, still, "being seen" is a good thing. Maybe not a resume-padder, but better than *not* being seen, by far.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: Recently, several AI/CS conferences, such as AAMAS, or IJCAI put quite a bit of weight on poster sessions. Either each paper is required to be presented as a poster as well (AAMAS), or only selected papers get oral-only presentation and the rest poster-only presentation without making any difference in the conference proceedings (IJCAI). Poster sessions serve for dissemination of good quality work, being either promising, but still relatively preliminary, or targets a narrow audience, instead of general community.
Personally, when planned and executed well, I find poster sessions very useful and at times even more useful than plain oral presentations. Interactions by posters allow for more involved discussions with the authors. Of course this requires a good thought at logistics of poster sessions from conference organizers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I will speak toward my experience, as a poster presenter, and a poster reviewer. My experience is primarily in the domains of **Epidemiology**, **Public Health** or **Medicine** so take that for what you will.
* "Does this mean they liked my work?". It means they don't *hate* your work. While conferences do need people, and their only rate-limiting factor is the size of whatever room they're having the poster session in, they don't accept all posters. I've reviewed posters, and some of the posters I marked down heavily didn't end up getting accepted. Admittedly, you'll see reject rates of like 20-25%, but that's still not nothing.
* "Is it as good as a talk?" Probably not. But keep in mind an abstract gets accepted as a talk because it fits *two* criteria: Quality and Theme. The talk has to be good. But as importantly, the talk has to be on a subject that fits well within a session, so an organizer will grab it. It's possible this doesn't happen, even if your abstract is amazing - sometimes, it just doesn't fit in somewhere.
* "Is it important?" *Yes!* It's not the most important thing you've ever done, and it's not going to change your career. But from standing next to posters I've gotten complements - and critiques - of my work that have made it better. I've made contacts that have turned into collaborations. I've talked to important people, and had my work in front of them. Someone I know got a "Here's my card, why don't you shoot me an email after the conference..." Admittedly, I've gotten all that from talks as well, but a poster isn't just some sad way to justify your registration fee.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I basically agree with Rule 4, and analogously feel that giving a contributed paper doesn't count for much (and carries almost no evidence that your work has been vetted).
However, I would encourage you to see a poster presentation (or giving a contributed paper) as an **opportunity to practice your presentation skills**.
One advantage of a poster session is that you can try explaining a concept in different ways, and see which explanation is most well received.
Although you're obviously honing your ability to communicate verbally, you should also be honing your ability to present information visually in a simple way. Many of the same principles that make for a good poster also make for good slides. And these principles are far from obvious to most people when they start out.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the maturation process of a research effort.
A poster session is ideal for the early stages of the research, when you may not have much more than an idea, and you stand to benefit a lot from discussing your idea with other researchers from the same field. You may get some valuable pointers, and perhaps other conferencegoers will find your idea interesting. I've had some productive conversations with presenters at poster sessions.
A conference talk is better after you have some findings, formed some conclusions, and your are ready to present your results to other experts.
If you have a chance to collect even more data to bolster the validity of your research, you could eventually get it published as a journal article.
So, if you've been working on something for six or seven years, then, indeed, a poster session wouldn't be anything to write home about.
I agree with rule's overall sentiment: Poster Acceptance Means Nothing. In other words, a dozen poster acceptances won't put you on the fast track for tenure. However, that doesn't mean the activity has no value. Poster sessions can be especially beneficial for budding researchers, getting them used to talking about their research with experts from outside their university – maybe for the first time. Plus, some conference attendees will be interested in what they might see talked about at next year's conference.
So, are poster sessions a crowning acheivement? Hardly. But they still can be a productive stepping-stone, which is why I think it's sad when they are looked down upon.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: I'd say that there is a big difference in breadth vs depth. If you have a paper on a broad subject that is interesting to 50%+ of the researchers in that conference, then obviously a speaking slot is needed, but if you have some advances that are important but in a niche that really interests 5% of the attendants... then a poster would be more efficient in dissemination than a speaking slot.
I've been to conferences where I'm interested in something like 5 out of 50 posters, but those 5 topics were very important to me - it's impractical to have everyone speak, but it would be bad if those poster presenters wouldn't be there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: It's very field-dependent and conference-dependent. I can only answer based on the field in which I work (computer vision).
Generally speaking, the way big computer vision conferences like CVPR work is that you submit a paper, which is peer-reviewed, with the reviewers indicating whether they feel your paper deserves an oral presentation, a poster or rejection. In terms of prestige, it's seen as being distinctly better to get an oral presentation than a poster, but getting a poster is a non-negligible success: the important thing is that your peer-reviewed paper got accepted, and will be published in the conference proceedings. Indeed, most of the papers at conferences like CVPR are presented as posters rather than talks, but they're still very much seen as high-quality work.
Unlike in fields with different conference cultures (e.g. that mentioned by @username_9), you won't get to present a poster at a conference like CVPR if your work is at an early stage: you'll just get your paper rejected. It's certainly not a medium for disseminating incipient work. Moreover, if you have twelve CVPR papers, most people would think you're doing pretty well, regardless of whether they were presented as talks or posters (primarily because in this context, poster acceptance => paper acceptance, and papers at major conferences are valuable).
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/07/26 | 1,033 | 4,579 | <issue_start>username_0: For a long time I thought that when I start my PhD, my field of research is fixed for the rest of my academic career. However, I've encountered multiple people who have a PhD in space science or particle physics, and have later moved to atmospheric science or remote sensing — one of them even after already having tenure, starting an entirely new topic while remaining at the same institute. How common or uncommon is it to change to an unrelated field within natural science? How much chance would one have of a post-doc if the newly graduated PhD has no experience with the actual topic whatsoever? Is it expected that a Postdoc spends the first 3–6 months getting into the field, or that he/she can dive into the depth right away? Of course, a lot of scientifically relevant skills (data analysis, critical thinking, programming, statistics, etc.) are in common between different fields, but how important is the *content* of ones experience, really?
Related but different question: [How might changing topic affect a career in academia?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1696/how-might-changing-topic-affect-a-career-in-academia) (different because from e.g. particle physics to climate science is more than just changing topic)<issue_comment>username_1: Most successful career researchers choose their field fairly early on in their career. This is often due to their approach to research; they have a fundamental question they're attempting to answer, and they spend years attacking different parts of the question through various projects. Pursuing research in this manner allows for flexibility in the research and can lead to some very interesting breakthroughs.
From what I've seen, those who do change areas of interest often do so within a single field, so that the majority of their expertise is still relevant. Yes, data analysis skills can transfer, but much of a researcher's expertise is in the form of a deep understanding of what the past and current state of the field; knowing important (and less important) papers, what different lab groups are researching, what's been tried and what hasn't. Since such a knowledge base can take many years to gain, people are often reluctant to switch.
I would venture that it's more common for a *field* to shift than for a single researcher to shift; i.e., some new technology or methodology allows a whole group of researchers in a given field to investigate something new or different.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that a lot of this depends on what you define by "change fields".
In my observation, there is generally a lot of commonality even in a change, when the change is successful.
For example, somebody might have a mathematical toolkit of skills that they are very good at, and discover that it is useful in an application area that they didn't originate in. As they work in that application area, it exposes them to new problems that they find they need to solve to make progress, which leads to developing new skills and interests. From those one might move again, and so on.
The researchers whose work I respect most have often been through several of these types of transitions over the course of their careers. There are always uniting themes, but the topics, techniques, and intersecting communities may well change over time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As someone who has changed fields completely, I wanted to chip in. In my experience, changing **between** fields (rather than **within**) is extremely *uncommon*. I have only met one other person in the last 10 years who has also done so; this is all in Europe, mind you.
The entire system of getting a PhD is about (aside from becoming a researcher) gaining very specific knowledge in a specific area- after having gained all this skill and knowledge, it is very costly to then leave the field to something that does not build on those skills nor the knowledge.
My advice would thus be to focus on transferable skills (such as the ones you mentioned) if you know that you want to switch. I knew before I started my PhD that I would never end up in the field- thus, I focused heavily on those and less so on expanding topic-wise. When applying for my post-docs, knowledge wasn't even considered- it was all about my technical skills. It all depends on the post-doc and the field, of course. As a personal note, while I don't regret switching, it was (and still is) a lot of work making up for essentially missing education in the area you work in.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/26 | 1,103 | 4,527 | <issue_start>username_0: When two people in a couple are both in science, but specialised in different fields, how can they both find relevant positions but still be geographically reasonably proximate?
Compromise and [change fields](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2632/how-unusual-is-changing-fields)? Work part-time from a distance if employers' permit it (do they usually?)? Travel both quite far each day? One person leaves science?
Are there other ways to resolve this? Any personal experiences around here?<issue_comment>username_1: I have not performed a literature survey, but the only solution that looks viable is to choose a large and well-connected city like London with plenty of scope for both fields.
It is very common in India to find faculty couples, especially in the IITs. It is advantageous for the university as they are, in a way, settling the couple and ensuring their long-term stay.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a very difficult, and unfortunately common problem. It is dealt with in many ways, including all of the ones you mention. Solving the problem almost always involves a serious compromise by one or both parties. Couples can take many approaches:
1. Not compromise on their jobs: both take the best academic jobs they can find. This usually involves living apart, in different cities, sometimes for years. They end up with lots of frequent flyer miles.
2. One becomes an academic, the other leaves academia: this makes it much easier to live together, but might require a major sacrifice by one of the couple, if they had their heart set on an academic career.
3. Both compromise on placement quality: couples can commit to both finding academic jobs together. Since it is difficult to find two jobs at the same university, this often involves taking jobs at a lower ranked institution, or less desirable location than either could get on their own. Some universities specialize in recruiting couples: this can be a coup for the university, since they get two researchers who are both higher quality than they would normally be able to recruit.
A long (daily) commute for each person can represent an extremely successful outcome of type 1), or a less successful outcome of type 3). For example, it is possible (although grueling) for a couple to live in Princeton, and have one commute to Philadelphia and one commute to New York.
This is not to say that it is impossible to achieve perfect success: there are academic couples, both of whom are in the same department at the top university in their field. But this requires an extraordinary amount of both talent and luck.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Many universities (like the one where my wife and I work) have dual-career hiring programs explicitly to address this issue. It's definitely worth asking—*carefully*—whether the universities you are considering have such a program.
Here's how our system works. Suppose Department X offers a faculty position to Partner A, and later department Y offers a faculty position to Partner B. Then Partner B's salary is paid 1/3 by department Y, 1/3 by department X, and 1/3 from a general campus fund.\* (Note that X and Y may be the same department.)
So Department Y has a significant financial incentive to hire Partner B. On the other hand, Department X must be willing to pay extra for Partner A; in practice, however, once an faculty offer to A is actually on the table, most department chairs find it hard to refuse to help hire B.
This is why you have to be careful how and when you ask. It's illegal in the US to discriminate against a job candidate because they're married—we're not even allowed to ask—but it is completely legal to hire a cheaper candidate over a more expensive one. If department X already knows that you have a two-body problem, they also know that hiring you will be more expensive. The safest strategy is not to mention that your partner needs a position (or even that your partner is another academic) until an offer is on the table.
---
\*When I originally posted this answer in 2012, this financial arrangement was de-facto permanent, but my university has recently refined its policies. [As of June 2018, the joint funding arrangement is permanent (“recurring”) if Partner B has a tenure-track faculty position, and limited to three years otherwise](https://provost.illinois.edu/policies/provosts-communications/communication-8-dual-career-academic-couples-program/#_Toc432164824).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/26 | 1,150 | 4,940 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a year away from getting my undergrad degree in (computer) engineering, with a minor in Japanese. I never had the opportunity to do a study abroad due to the rigors of the major. As some probably know, the JET program is a program by which selected individuals move to Japan to teach English at public schools for a year (or two or three, but not more, I believe). I've always been very interested in doing something like this, but I have always assumed that doing so would ruin my chances of getting into a graduate program or landing a good job upon my return.
It wouldn't be like attending grad school before entering the industry or vice versa, in that I would be teaching English for a living, not studying or working in my field. I could still self study, and my field gives me the advantage of still being able to apply my skills working on personal projects and open-source software, but I would certainly be removed from the industry and academia, I would expect.
I feel like leave from the field would look bad to any prospective schools or employers. How accurate is my assumption? Would a leave of absence to do something like this reflect poorly on me in the eyes of potential schools or employers?<issue_comment>username_1: This will not hurt your future plans. International experience and second language skills like this will likely help, even if they are not related to your undergraduate or graduate career.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This might have a small negative effect on your chances of admission, by making you look less committeed or sure of your long-term goals. However, I believe the effect would be quite small, and in many cases it wouldn't be an issue at all.
One way to avoid this issue completely would be to apply to grad school and then defer for a year after admission. Deferring may or may not be possible, depending on the field and university. In my department, several grad students defer each year, usually for things like Part III of the Tripos at Cambridge. I don't recall a case where someone was teaching English for a year overseas, but I imagine deferring for that would be allowed.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I don't think a gap year of the kind you describe would influence my admissions decision adversely. If anything, it would make me more intrigued. As with all things, you should make sure to articulate your story well in your personal statement if you think it needs explanation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have said, a year teaching English won't look bad on its own.
That being said, if you are thinking of graduate school, you might want to figure out who will write you letters of recommendation, and ask them to write the letters now. You want your letter writers to write for you while their memories are still fresh, rather than having to remind them of what exactly you did with them a year later, by email.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In my experience (biology), I think that taking a couple of years off before grad school provided me with an advantage during applications. Granted, I was working at a biotech company, so I was still developing "relevant" expertise (though in the end, it wasn't really relevant to what I worked on for my dissertation).
I think that the most important consideration is that you continue to learn during your hiatus. Fluency in a foreign language can be very valuable in academia -- I expect that there are a lot of top-notch computer scientists in Japan. Ideally, you would be able to establish relationships with Japanese CS students/researchers; I'd bet that many of the students are itching for help learning/practicing English.
There are a few reasons that older applicants may be more attractive in general:
* They are not continuing in school by default/inertia, and so are more likely to complete the program
* They are more mature, so they are less likely to cause drama in the department.
* They can bring outside perspective into their research. The academic career machine places a big emphasis on "shaking things up" and learning from a wide variety of situations/mentors.
I also see a couple of possible downsides:
* Some fields have a youth cult, where they think that radical thinking comes from young researchers. Specifically, I'm thinking of [mathematics](http://www.massey.ac.nz/~rmclachl/overthehill.html), though this may apply to CS. In contrast, the conventional wisdom is that biologists value experience and perspective.
* You will be older when you graduate and start your academic career. This may not be a big deal if your grad programs are short (5 years). A low salary and the need to chase jobs across the country/globe may not seem like a problem when you are 21 and healthy, but things are different when you are 30 and have responsibilities and are not as strong as you once were.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/27 | 2,553 | 10,879 | <issue_start>username_0: We have had quite a few discussions on how to gauge the quality of research papers and academic journals. The consensus is that it is tough to identify a single metric which could reveal this quality factor.
I had an idea in this context. In the past newspapers used to have a single "Letters to Editor" section to which comments on all articles were sent. With the advent of the Net, we have a comments section under every article.
* Similarly, why don't reputable journals introduce a comment space for their published papers, where fellow researchers could appreciate/criticise/query the works?
* What hinders us from having a reputation system for published papers - something where registered users could vote based on their perceived utility?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Similarly, why don't reputable journals introduce a comment space for their published papers, where fellow researchers could appreciate/criticise/query the works?
>
>
>
They don't need to create such a space, since these comments can already appear elsewhere on the internet. Nevertheless, some journals have tried, but they typically attract [very few comments](http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/07/23/no-comment/), and nobody knows how to create a viable community this way. See that link (and the blog posts it links to) for further discussion.
>
> What hinders us from having a reputation system for published papers - something where registered users could vote based on their perceived utility?
>
>
>
One major obstacle is that not enough people seem to want to use such a system. There have been many attempts to set one up, but none have caught on.
However, there's a deeper obstacle. In order to get any meaningful results at all, you need to solve at least three problems: ensuring that votes come only from competent researchers, ensuring that nobody can deliberately manipulate the system or cheat, and ensuring that voters have the right incentives even if they are not trying to be dishonest. In principle, it might be possible to solve these problems, but it would take a nontrivial infrastructure. However, the more elaborate the system becomes, the harder it will be to get lots of users. A large majority of researchers won't pay any attention to a system like this, and some of the ones who do care will be strongly opposed, so getting widespread adoption will be an uphill battle.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As a follow up to username_1's answer, I think the answer lies in Arxiv: a lot of people already use it, there is no profiting involved and even if a paper is moved to a given journal, the paper's page main remain online with all discussions In it (except that the PDF is replaced with a link). So it can create a solid up/down voting system.
As for reputation, everyone may start equally but a Web of Science citation analysis,for example, may be used to yield a larger starting reputation to get things going.
Going further, this may also replace the reviewing process: the paper is uploaded, everyone may read it and someone who thinks it is interesting may then apply as a candidate reviewer. This would avoid reviewers who don't really understand about your work (as is certainly not uncommon to happen).
It is a leap of faith to trust a reputation system rather than a faculty hierarchy. Notwithstanding, note that the current review system is already embalmed in such trust: even a high school student can publish a paper if it is reviewed to be interesting; conversely, if you publish nice papers you are invited to review nice papers.
In a sense, this shifts the focus away from the periodicals themselves.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Also complementing username_1's answer: one of the main uses of the "peer-review system" is "allocation of a scarce resource", namely, academic positions and grants. For that matter, it is not really accurate to talk about "peer review" in that regard, because typically it is not one's peers but one's "seniors" or "competitors" that reject one's paper, whether or not with good reason. But it is pleasanter to talk about "peer review" than "gatekeeping".
Another corruptive influence is that journals themselves vie for "reputation", which drives an odd jousting-for-position between authors and editors, wherein each tries to acquire as much status as possible, by connecting to higher-status "others"... Let's ask ourselves whether the same impulse wouldn't corrupt nearly any publication-for-status structure. I have no idea how to design-against, or design-around this.
If the status rewards are reduced beyond a certain point, we might indeed find ourselves with the "hermit gatekeepers" who simply have nothing better to do... as mentioned in the comment by <NAME>. Given human nature, it seems that the broad pattern demands incentives that are not entirely idealistic.
As it is, we can easily see that on Math Overflow, MathStackExchange, and many such vehicles, the most-popular questions are approximate repeats of questions that have been asked many times before. For a year or so, such a site will have a feel of freshness and novelty, but it is not clear to me what happens after some years when the limited repertoire of basic questions (motivated by undergrad or grad courses and such) is fairly completely documented, so that one no longer *asks* a question, but first carefully does the archival search.
I *would* advocate that academics who are already established, tenured, etc., think more in terms of the subject matter itself and putting helpful things on-line, rather than continuing to take up quite so much space in the game that beginners must play to *get* a position, *get* tenure, etc. True, one won't maximize one's pay raise each year without continuing to play the same game forever, but academic departments could really work harder to figure out how to appraise post-tenure people, which wouldn't upset the tenure criteria per-se at all. "Get out of the young peoples' way."
Edit: In response to "comment": I think the sense in which these points address the original question is that, if there were *no* presumption that the present "peer review" system should be supplanted, then why ask the question at all? Just use the "stack exchange" or similar software and everyone who wants to put papers or reviews of papers on it, and vote, or down-vote, can do so. There is no obstacle to this, so why ask the question... *except* to propose also that there be a transition. My remarks above, and some of the other comments, indicate why I think there would be problems. E.g., many of the people one would want to participate would not, for a variety of reasons, which would certainly have the effect of failing to confer one sort of status of a sort currently essential to professional survival at a junior level.
That is, putting the question in a context in which it makes sense to ask it (rather than a more formal sense somewhat disjoint from that context), the other parts of the context prove to be significant in answering the original. If one speculates that the issue is about *replacing* "peer reviewed traditional journal publication" (paper or electronic) with a different structure, then it is reasonable to see why there would be trouble.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: For an update, you might want to have a look at probably the largest organized group discussing this and similar issues - FORCE <http://www.force11.org/> - stands for "The future of research communication and e-scholarship"
In [Manifesto](http://www.force11.org/white_paper) they say that new models of reputation are required, etc. However, a ready to use system is not yet developed
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: When I submit a manuscript, I value the work of the reviewers a lot. Revision work is, most of the time, an excellent exercise that allows you to question your own work, and improve it. In a way, getting my article accepted in a reputable journal is one of the few signs that what I do is of some quality (or not, if it is rejected). So, peer review *is* a system in which people 'vote' for your work, and suggest edits, similarly to SO Q&As. When people cite my work, it is the equivalent of the upvotes on SO. Of course, exactly like on SO, the more popular your domain is (your academic 'tag'), the easier it is to get upvotes. But people you care about are usually clever enough to figure that out.
Now, is peer-review a perfect system? No. But neither is SO's voting system. At the end, what one needs to do is use one's brain when reading something: *you* are probably not too bad at judging quality of the work published in your field.
This being said, I think that it is a good idea to have an alternative system of evaluating research. I find that the discussion of articles on [pubpeer.com](https://pubpeer.com) to be a good way to anonymously criticize published literature.
I should add that I have the chance (or was it a choice..?) to work in a field where there is little political involvement. So I could imagine that comments of readers would be for the most part constructive and in the worst case, irrelevant. But that is not the case for everyone...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: First, I rely on the response of others here regarding nuanced comments. I take it they're saying that if we do facilitate appreciation, critique, and query within a journal, and even if we don't, those kinds of responses will flourish primarily outside the journal.
Second, here is a notable hindrance to a reputation score system for published papers. How you respond to this hindrance constrains how you design, or refuse to design, such a system.
A voting system is a systematic decision about ranking multiple options that is based on multiple individuals' recommendations for ranking those options.
Trick question: Do we accept that definition? Because, if so, the problem is that no satisfactory voting system can exist.
[Arrow's impossibility theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem) states that every systematic ranking based on the rankings from each of a group of recommenders is unsatisfactory in at least one of these ways:
* The group's ranking is completely controlled by one single recommender. Comment: we could call this person the "dictator", the "editor-in-chief", or as @JohnMoeller said above the "hermit gatekeeper".
* The group's ranking sometimes orders two options differently from the ordering that was chosen by *every single one* of the recommenders.
* The group's ranking sometimes orders two options differently, say, A and B, because recommenders changed their recommended rankings overall, even though *every single one* of the recommenders kept unchanged their own ordering of A and B.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/07/27 | 1,052 | 4,369 | <issue_start>username_0: What is the best strategy to determine common knowledge in an unfamiliar field? I have provided an example below, but I am not looking for an answer specific to that example.
We have [an answered question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2192/on-citing-common-knowledge-statements) that addresses whether and how common knowledge should be cited. A more difficult problem is determining what is common knowledge in an unfamiliar field. In my answer to the question linked, I provide one strategy, examining introductory textbooks in that field. However, as was mentioned in the comments, not all fields have introductory texts.
As an example, I am working on an institutional grant proposal. The proposed activities have to do with increasing retention rates of freshmen students, particularly in the sciences. We are looking at targeting pedagogical reform in introductory classes and increasing engagement through more and better co-curricular experiences.
My background is in chemistry. I do not know what is common knowledge in the worlds of pedagogy and student engagement/retention. I have been reading books and articles on the subjects, and citation practices have been inconsistent. Some authors provide citations for everything, including broad generalizations and common sense, like:
>
> * There are many reasons why an undergraduate student may choose to leave college.
>
>
>
And then others provide very few citations, including for statements that seem like they should have been based on a study:
>
> * More than half of all students who withdraw from college are freshmen.
> * Less than half of the students who declare science majors will graduate with a degree in a science field.
>
>
>
I realize that the former case may be from overzealous paranoia about plagiarism, and the latter case may be an example of poor scholarship, but this is difficult to assess as an outsider.
EDIT: For clarification, I am asking about determining when something requires a citation if I am writing in a field that I do not normally participate in. I know that I should always cite things that are new, obscure, or counter to prevailing thought. I wouldn't necessarily need to cite things that are "well-established" or "agreed-upon". After a certain point, if enough studies have reaffirmed the same result, or if the result has been so widely cited that it becomes well-known, it is pointless to cite it. It is currently silly to provide a citation for "The structure of DNA is a double helix formed by two complimentary strands held together by hydrogen-bonding between the base pairs." At one point, however, it was not silly, because this idea was new.
How can I quickly determine where a finding is on the continuum between new/obscure and well established?<issue_comment>username_1: By far the simplest way to get around this problem is to simply give it to a colleague who is more well-versed in the field and have them judge which statements need to be backed up by citations and which don't.
The next simplest way is to read papers on a very similar topic to yours (which, no doubt, do exist) and see what they cite.
On a related note, my advisor gave me the advice of "when in doubt, cite." His point was that the only real downside of an unnecessary reference is added length to the paper. If you get to that point, and the only thing left to cut is citations, then you can start to worry.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is no easy criterium saying where you should cite, when - a review article or a book, and when - you can safely skip citing anything.
Anyway, ask 2-3 guys within that field. If for any of them it's not 'obvious' - you should cite. If it is old enough that there is a book on it - it's fine to cite it. (Alternatively, you can try asking on a respective StackExchange site.)
Moreover, if for you something is not obvious, you should cite it as well (the chances are a reader of you paper won't know more than you). Note that many well-known results (e.g. results of integration or summation) are referenced for the reader's convenience (and to make it obvious that it is not a novel discovery).
Also, one sanity-check may be if there is a well-written Wikipedia page on the subject. If there is, *perhaps* you don't need to cite it.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/28 | 1,308 | 5,539 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a Bachelor's in Computer Engg from India but the education system here is pathetic and I have no idea about research.
I'm about to join an Ivy league university in the US for the Master's program and I'd like to experience research now that I'll have the perfect opportunity to, but I'm not even sure if I know what research is. So I have a few questions:
When you say you're into research, what do you exactly mean? What are you doing? Why are you doing it? If not this, what else could you have done that would still be classified as research? How did you come up with the idea of what you're doing right now? What can I publish and what can't I but I'm likely to think that I can being a rookie? And most important, how do I come up with an idea to carry research on?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> And most important, how do I come up with an idea to carry research
> on?
>
>
>
This, for most people, is a learned skill. Increasingly, Phd programs are where this skill is learned. A non exhaustive skill sets include:
* Having the "right" way to approach an issue as a research problem. Learn to identify what issues are *not* fruitful research problems.
* A set of ethic/behavior codes specific to research.
* Developing a strong level of perseverance (research *is* grinding)
>
> Why are you doing it?
>
>
>
Because, in an increasing number of fields, these skills are necessary. Phd is a form of apprenticeship approach to the acquisition of these skills.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: At the risk of being trite, research is about creating *new* knowledge (that's really the underlying condition for PhD acceptance, did you do something new - and worthwhile, and enough of it). However, like username_3 commented, how this is done in CS varies from area to area, quite significantly.
For my area, it's quite like a lot of mathematics research, it all revolves around developing new theorems about properties of problems or computational models &c. (so you think, then think some more, write it down, realise it's wrong, go back to thinking, talk to someone else, think a bit, write something done... until you have something that is "enough")
For other areas, say data security, research might involve developing and implementing new security protocols, or cryptographic algorithms (though in data security, there's also the mathematical theory part, so it's not all the same).
As for why you do it, that's kind of up to you. At one level you're contributing to human knowledge in a way that will hopefully be useful, however the underlying reason a lot of people go into research is really because they love the area they're in, so the "why" is quite personal. You really do have to love it though, as research is usually slow, misunderstood by others and often disheartening - until you get that moment when you have a result (then you go back to the start).
Where the ideas come from is also a tricky thing. If you're thinking far in the future, they come from you, but this isn't as hard as it sounds, once you start to get into a particular discipline, you (should) start asking questions about why things work certain ways, how they can be improved, how they can be combined with other things. Some of these questions will already have answers, others won't, that's where you start the research. In the short term however, you will likely not need to come up with the overall questions and directions for your research, you will be part of your supervisor's research project(s), and they will give you a starting point. Note that they don't necessarily know how to get the answer either, that's why it's research, a lot of excellent students come undone at this point because there's no definite answer, they can't just check things when they're unsure, so you have to be prepared for uncertainty and incomplete knowledge (its your job to complete it!).
Publishing standards you'll also learn from your supervisor, and from reading papers in your area. You'll quickly figure out how much goes into papers of different types.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: [This answer is colored by the fact that I'm a theoretical computer scientist.]
As an undergraduate, you are (usually) given crisp, well-formulated problems with definite correct answers that you can reasonably expected to discover in a relatively short time period, using only a very narrow range of knowledge and skills. If you get stuck, your instructor can give you useful hints, because they already know how to solve the problem. Moreover, the instructor can probably explain the complete solution to you fairly quickly (in, say, less than a week).
Research involves vague, half-baked, open-ended problems that may resist progress after months or [even years](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2221/65) of hard work, regardless of how many classes you've taken or books/papers you've read. Nobody else knows the answer to the problem you're working on (or it isn't really research); nobody can even give you a hint how to proceed. Nobody has a clue what other results or techniques will be helpful, or if you're just going to have to make up a completely new technique on the fly. You don't know if the solution you're aiming for is actually useful or interesting, or even if the problem is formulated so that it has a definite answer. Still, you'd better find *something* interesting, or you'll never graduate.
If that sounds like fun, research might be for you!
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/29 | 236 | 974 | <issue_start>username_0: I would like to find journals response times? A google search does not give any good results. May be I am using wrong key words.
I am open to find particular subset of journal response times too. Any pointers about this is welcome. [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/904/333) gives a list of backlog for mathematical journals. Are there any such other list? How can I find them?
Thanks for comment.
Actually I would like to learn "From submission until a decision". I know "Total time from submission to publication" can take a lot of time.<issue_comment>username_1: Some journals insert the submission date and acceptance date in a footnote on the first page of the article. For those, it would be easy to look through the latest issue and see what is typical.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would send an email, or ideally go down the hall, and ask someone who has published in the journal how long it took.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/30 | 889 | 3,905 | <issue_start>username_0: As a graduate student I will mentor some undergrad students so that they can help me with my work and get some useful experience working in a lab.
From my past experience, I realized that they lack knowledge. So I do not want to them work on data analysis at least for a semester (unless they show promise) but at the same time do not want to just work on tightening nuts and bolts.
Also they lack time to get up to speed on doing research on their own.
What is a good way to get them interested in learning more? Also if you can point to some good resources on mentoring that would be helpful.
Edit (following eykanal's comment): I do not need to interact with undergrads on a regular basis. So I am not thinking about getting them interested in research, in general. I believe most of the students, who come to work in lab, are in general interested in learning, ignoring few who are just want to beef up their resume.
Last time I worked with a student, I had assigned him some data analysis related work only to realize later that he was more interested in working in the lab then in front of a computer. Lesson learned the hard way, because we ended up wasting time.
What I am looking for is the missteps to avoid when mentoring a student so that they would stay interested and try to do things on their own.<issue_comment>username_1: *All of the below stems from my own experience mentoring and working with undergrads, both as a grad student and as a postdoc.*
Firstly, realize that many undergraduate students aren't ready to do research on their own when they first arrive in a research lab. (Heck, neither are many graduate students...) Additionally, many will not *want* to do their own research, but they're very happy learning what you do and helping you set it up and work through it.
That being said, you'll want to start with simply talking to them *during the interview process* to determine what they want to gain from the experience. Most won't have a solid answer, but for the few that say something like, "I want to improve my MATLAB skills," or "I want to gain experience doing cell cultures", you now know whether they're a match for your lab.
The majority don't have specific interests, though. For those students, consider allowing them to work on a variety of projects with multiple graduate students. This allows them to observe different research techniques, different approaches to solving a research problem, and the different tools used in research. If you have the time, you (and the members of your lab) can take a more hands-on approach and actively mentor the student, showing them the various steps involved in constructing an experiment and the logic behind the data analysis stream.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: First, mentoring undergraduate students depend highly on their skills and motivation.
Second, you should expect that an undergraduate needs to learn the technique. Even if there are after many courses, real research involves learning particular theories, techniques, etc.
Consequently, you will need to invest some time in teaching them. Almost for sure it will be beneficial for them (unless there are not smart enough or lazy; or you overshot with a way-to-difficult problem). If they will pay back - it's hard to say.
Out of my experience (as a PhD student) - working was interesting and enjoyable, but I benefited only in terms of learning how to collaborate and lead projects (a crucial skill). In terms of boosting me research - well, I would have done the same (or more) by doing things by myself.
(But the main problem was that it was never so formal, so they had a limited amount of time to spend on the project; OK, once mentoring a high-school student it was *very* beneficial for them (the first prize in an international competition), but it's a different story than a collaboration.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/30 | 643 | 2,892 | <issue_start>username_0: For conferences that "peer review" and "publish" full papers, when, if ever, can you resubmit essentially unchanged versions for publication in a peer reviewed journal?
In my field, when conference papers appear as book chapters, people often "republish" them as journal articles.
I have just had a talk accepted at a conference which is now (decided post submission) planning on publishing the proceedings as a special issue of a journal. It appears the journal is complete crap with an extremely light peer review process in general, no impact factor, and essentially not indexed. I think this "article" will be worthless, but I am concerned that I will not be able to republish the results in a respectable journal.<issue_comment>username_1: This varies by field. In (most) fields that have journal-based publications and no tradition of selective refereed conferences, it might be quite hard to publish a paper in a journal after it has appeared in some proceedings, without substantial changes.
In computer science, in which conference publication is the norm, it is expected that journal papers have first appeared in conference proceedings. This is especially true if the full paper does not fit in the page-limit of the conference proceedings, and proofs or other material had to be left out of the first publication. Typically you have to make some small changes between the conference and the journal version (i.e. include full proofs, include a fuller discussion of related and subsequent work, etc), but in CS, the delta between conference and journal version can be relatively minor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In math, FPSAC (Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics) accepts and referees "extended abstracts" for presentations. Presenters are selected based (in part) on the quality of these abstracts, and the abstracts appear in a special issue of DMTCS. The submission guidelines for FPSAC state
>
> The authors will retain the right of publishing a full version of their work in another journal. Authors who do intend to publish a full version elsewhere should however make sure that their conference contribution is clearly an extended abstract of this full version.
>
>
>
Several conference centers publish proceedings of their workshops, for which presenters are asked to submit extended abstracts of their talks after the fact; for example, both AIM (the American Institute of Mathematics) and Oberwolfach (formally known as Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach) do this. Again, the norm is that the abstract should be a summary of your presentation, with less detail than the published version.
I think that the main answer here is going to be "see if the conference organizers have made a statement, and check with some more senior people as to what the unwritten norms are".
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/30 | 607 | 2,550 | <issue_start>username_0: I have recently decided to no longer publish, or at least publish less, with a well respected journal in my field. How do I let the journal know in a meaningful way that the submission process is very painful?
The required Microsoft Word and LaTeX templates are extremely dated and do not match my (or anyones) workflow. The review time (6 months), number of reviewer (3-4), number of rounds of review (3-4), and delay from in press to available online (8 months) are all too much. The lack of communication is extreme. The online system tells you if the manuscript is on your desk or the journals desk and nothing more. Editors do not respond to queries other than to tell you it is being reviewed.<issue_comment>username_1: Aside from writing a letter to their editor, I don't think there's much you can do, particularly if the journal is well-respected. There are plenty of fish in the sea, so to speak. Unless you're the leading researcher in the journal's field, your ideological protest, while commendable, won't make the slightest difference to them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The best method to send the message that you disagree with one or more of its policies or practices to a journal is to stop publishing in it (regardless of prestige) **and** to convince as many of your like-minded colleagues to stop publishing in it as you can. Publicizing your intent in a calm, rational, and deliberative way, does not hurt, either. See the ongoing [Elsevier Boycott](http://thecostofknowledge.com), which has already gained the attention of Elsevier and earned some concessions from the publisher.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You may get the best response by using informal channels. If you know the managing editor of the journal (my field is small enough that I often do), you might send an informal email, or even just express your concern in person. As username_2 mentioned, **the key is that you communicate in a calm, rational, and deliberative way**.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I am answering my own question with an option that hasn't been given yet. If the journal is linked to a society (which it is in this case) with an annual (biannual, etc.) conference, then there may be a special conference session on the journal which the managing editors attend. For the journal in question, the concerns have been raised at the annual meeting for the past few years and there is a growing community of dissatisfied people who are taking stances like mine.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/30 | 302 | 1,272 | <issue_start>username_0: I often read in research articles acknowledgments such as
>
> The first author is (partially) supported by a grant of the National Science Foundation of Sikinia no. 1234567890.
>
>
>
What are the guidelines for acknowledging funding agencies? Should I mention, for instance, grants that cover some research expenses or sponsor my participation to a conference? Or only those who pay me directly?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally the funding agencies provide guidelines regarding the kinds of acknowledgements you need to use. When reporting to the funding agency, some will only accept papers that have been appropriately acknowledged. Others are happy just to see papers produced by the people they fund.
For instance,
* EU Projects require acknowledgement, and a specific phrase must be used.
* Flemish FWO projects require no such acknowledgement.
In any case, it never hurts to acknowledge your source of funding.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The general rule I recommend is extremely liberal: If you write or publish a paper while being funded by a grant in any capacity whatsoever, acknowledge the grant. ("Work by this author was partially supported by...")
When in doubt, say thank you.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/07/30 | 1,243 | 5,111 | <issue_start>username_0: I hope this is the appropriate stacksite to ask this question.
I have a BSc in Computer Software Development and would very much like to study another year for an MSc in Computer Science. I had the choice of an MEng but decided to take the separate MSc.
I've heard mixed opinions on the subject but considering the climate I personally think it would be a good idea to gain a post-graduate degree. I've heard from Master students who were able to open many more opportunities from gaining an MSc - such as successfully entering the Game Industry which I know is very competitive. Although I'm not one for Game related modules, I chose more software engineering, database, and programming modules instead of rendering and games design modules throughout my BSc.
I will be getting into a considerable amount of additional debt to fund this year, but I feel like I'd be much more employable so the debt wouldn't really be a problem.
What do you think? Any advice or input would be greatly appreciated. I am 23 and an Englishman, just to put things into perspective.<issue_comment>username_1: You didn't mention if you want to do an MS in the UK or the US. If the former, I have no experience of how it works over there.
In general, an MS in CS does improve your chances of getting a decent job, but a lot depends on where you're getting an MS. In the US, the masters program is often viewed as a way to generate revenue via tuition, so your main benefit from the program is if it's very good at placing students. Obviously an MS from a place like Stanford or Berkeley will help you immensely because of the proximity of many tech options. But if you don't go to a place that has a good track record with placement, then the degree itself, while opening some doors, will not have provided you with maximum benefit for the price you're paying.
Also, make sure you go to a place that has strong ties to industry in the areas you're interested in. Since you mentioned games, many universities (including mine!) have specialized MS programs in game design (and we have fairly strong ties to local industry in the game world). That might be too specialized for you, but you get the general drift
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, I believe, that graduate science education is not a good choice from a purely financial standpoint. Not only do you have the fees, but also a lost year of wages and experience. If you are looking at a year of un/under employment, then it is easier to argue for graduate education.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There are two factors at play:
1. It is going to be the cheapest point in your life to get one.
2. Once you have it you've got it for life, like learning to ride a bike.
If you have the chance to do the course and you have the intelligence to complete it then its a good idea. The extra year not working is nothing compared to the 40+ years you are going to be working afterwards.
An MSc will make you stand out against a BSc for those jobs you actually want. Plus it should allow you to progress faster, not because you have it but because you are actually more capable and able to think with more depth.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I was always taught that a year in industry is worth LOTS more than a MSc. 2 years industry experience will bring your salary to £35,000 - £45,000 range, whereas MSc guarantees very little.
If you did a BSc with a year in industry then I would forget a master's all together and just resume looking for work. Only apply for MSc if you cannot find a job.
Also consider that you can study yourself from home, and actually pick topics which are actually used in industry. My popular example is that in university they teach SQL which is old as OO-SQL is out, but in industry it's normal to use NoSQL. So will extra education from a university help with your career...?
After all, have you ever seen a job which requires a master's degree? I have not!
EDIT: First edit was removed. Here is another point: does a computer science course actually teach skills you will need in industry, as it is such a generic course? I would often recommend master's degree, but I do not see how it helps you get a job when it teaches stuff which is outdated or not used in industry...
They teach Java at uni, yet in industry you'll most likely be using a framework like Spring which you either will not be taught at uni, or you will do barely a few weeks.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Given a 24 year old with a BSc a year in industry, and a good reference, and a 24 year old with an MSc but no reference beyond their tutor's (who has a stake in his student being hired), I would take the industry kid any day.
*However.*
Given a 34 year old BSc with 11 years of experience and a 34 year old MSc with 10 years of experience, I would promote/hire the MSc any day.
*However.*
Given a life where my activities are dictated by a potential future HR employer and a life where my activities are directed by myself and myself alone, I would choose myself over HR any day.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/07/30 | 867 | 3,543 | <issue_start>username_0: I am originally from India, currently a PhD student in Mathematics in the US. As such I don't have very many ties to the US and I was wondering whether it is common for PhDs from the US to get academic positions in Australia and New Zealand. I have seen some jobs postings on <http://www.mathjobs.org/> advertising positions in Aus/NZ universities, but I am not sure how many US PhDs apply to them.
>
> Are most faculty members in Aus/NZ universities 'homegrown', or is it fairly common to see PhD's from other countries? Is a US PhD the norm, an advantage, or a disadvantage when applying for an academic position in Aus/NZ?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I know many academics in Australia who obtained their PhD in the United States. In general, I think that overseas experience is seen as a positive, whether it be an Australian going overseas to do a PhD or a PostDoc or a non-Australian obtaining their PhD or PostDoc overseas. Some ranking systems even rate departments based on the number of international faculty members.
Of course, you still need to meet the job requirements. Thus, it is still going to help if you have a great publication track record, have studied or worked in a world-renowned university with world-renowned academics, and so on. Most Australian universities have a job listing site where you can subscribe to job alerts. Also, you would generally need to have good English language skills.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The proportion of "homegrown" to "...imported?" PhDs varies depending on your discipline, but at the science end of things (I'm in computer science, but know plenty of mathematicians and also majored in chemistry as an undergraduate) it's quite international. Apart from pathological cases (known "bad" universities, or otherwise extremely dubious universities), where you got your PhD is not particularly important. As Jeromy says in another answer, international experience is definitely viewed favourably though. My having done my doctorate overseas has definitely been a boon.
The real criteria are performance based; publications, teaching (especially awards or other recognition) and ability to bring in the grant money! (That last one in quite important, for better or worse). As a recent Doctorate, you'll mainly need to show that you can conduct quality research.
Just for some completely non-statistically-significant stats, my Australian undergrad. chemistry department had about 50% overseas PhDs, my CS department had more like 90% overseas PhDs and my maths department had about 50% too. At my current (Australian) department (CS), it's probably about 70-80% overseas PhDs (though that's a guesstimate at the moment), including me.
Of course the caveat is, again, this will change from department to department and university to university. Some like to only hire their own graduates, others will never hire their own graduates. Your best course is really to contact the academics offering the jobs, establish a bit of an informal relationship and find out what each position is looking for.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Your research publications and the quality of your research are more important than were you got your Ph.D. When recruiting for an academic position, the committee is generally looking for someone with an excellent research record. It can help if you went to a famous university, but if you went to a famous university and do not have good publications, it will not save you.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/07/31 | 812 | 3,720 | <issue_start>username_0: IEEE asks journal authors to submit the names of their (non-)preferred reviewers. Given it may not be appropriate to list an acquaintance as a reviewer, how does one judge if an anonymous person will be a good reviewer or not?
Is giving "non-preferred" reviewers akin to the author confiding about his academic relationships to the editor? Do people really need to fill this column up at all?<issue_comment>username_1: A "non-preferred" reviewer is typically someone who may have personal or subjective reasons to react negatively to your work, regardless of its scientific content. It is not intended to be a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is generally worthwhile to identify people who both should and should not be invited to review a paper. Obviously most journals now require you to suggest names for reviewers—however, the editor is generally under no compulsion to invite these people to review the manuscript, if they feel other people are more suitable (or are more likely to accept the invitation).
The list of "non-preferred" reviewers is meant for "conflicts" rather than "conflicts of interest." If you have a direct competitor, or someone in the past who has been *inappropriately* hostile to your work, then you should list them here. However, as the original poster suggests, this could also be used to list "obvious" referees who shouldn't be candidates for a given paper *if* they are also collaborators of the authors (but perhaps not in the present work).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Just to add an editor’s perspective even though it partially duplicates the other answers:
Having seen the effect of preferred reviewers in the journal where I serve, I am not altogether happy about these options. The non-preferred category is one that I take seriously because conflicts can lead to bad or poor reviews for reasons other than the science. My problem is instead with the preferred reviewers.
When I assign reviewers I basically steer clear of the preferred reviewers as a rule. In the past when I have selected from this list, I have been extremely disappointed. Almost exclusively I have received *accept* reviews (accompanied by *rejects* from other reviewers), which I have been forced to deem practically useless and look for additional reviewers. I do not mean to say that all persons put on these lists provide poor reviews, but what I perceive as the original purpose namely to provide examples of names of persons whose objective opinion the author highly values is rapidly being drowned by names of friends. This has led me to stay clear of this list unless I myself recognize a name as somebody with integrity. I will nevertheless scrutinize that review with a hint of suspicion based on the experience I have. One way to avoid this could be to add a line or two stating why you have selected these names as preferred. This would help evaluate the usefulness of such reviewers. Sadly many submission systems do not username_4w for such comments except in the submission letter.
So I agree with the others answers, provide particularly non-preferred names but feel free to add also preferred but do not count on the preferred names to be used.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: An additional reason to list someone as non-preferred may not be a personal conflict or bad quality reviews, but you may suggest to the editor that someone seems to work in the same field, but probably does not have the right focus for reviewing your work. This is not always obvious for someone who isn't that involved in the field and may think that you're works are quite similar.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/07/31 | 484 | 2,196 | <issue_start>username_0: Some US universities offer a master's program that lasts for just a year. At times the cost of such programs are higher than the regular 2-year MS programs.
When should students opt for a one-year master's? What are the merits involved in such an option? The demerits seem to be many: lack of time for courses or internship opportunities or learning in general, less useful for a research career, etc.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think the length of program should be a direct factor when deciding on a masters program. I think you need to think about what each program gives your for your investment (time and possibly money).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: One-year master's programs in computer science are usually terminal course-based degrees. They are essentially useless for a future research career, because they do not include time to do research. (PhD admissions committees care about your research potential much more than your grades.) Put brutally, professional MS programs exist for the sole purpose of trading tuition for the promise of a higher salary. The advantage of these programs is that successful graduates (at least from my department) actually *do* get higher salaries, and the program only takes one year. Also, if you work for a particularly enlightened employer, they may be willing to (help) pay your tuition.
Two-year master's programs in computer science are more research-based. In addition to classes, most research master's students write a thesis describing original research; that's why it takes two years instead of just one. That's also one of the advantages of the program; you have more time to learn outside the formal classroom environment. You *may* also be able to secure funding through research or teaching assistantships; these are almost unheard of for professional master's students. The disadvantage is that if you're *not* interested in research, the program takes two years instead of one. On the other hand, a research masters seems to have the same effect on salary as a professional masters, in part because it's impossible to tell from a resume what type of MS you have.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/07/31 | 695 | 2,692 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently in my university research group (scientific fields: computer science and bioinformatics) we had some open positions for PhD students and PostDoc.
For the hiring phase, we decided to insert some announcements on many free websites.
We avoided pay websites, such as IEEE Job Site or others.
Now, the hiring phase has just ended up. We've found some good applicants, but not so good as we expected.
So I am wondering what would have happened if we had chosen the pay way.
I searched for some prices for a 30 days announcement on some popular job websites, and here are the prices I've found:
* Linkedin: 140 €
* ACM Careers: 380 €
* IEEE Computer Science Society job board: 400 €
* IEEE Job Site: 212 €
**Do you think that these prices were worth to find better PhD or PostDoc candidates?**
Do you think that next time we should pay one of these announcements in order to get better candidates?
Have you experienced before with them?
Many thanks<issue_comment>username_1: **Yes**, it's worth paying for an advertisement if you end up hiring a stronger candidate. I tend to be fairly frugal, but I think of your situation in terms of *one-time cost* vs. *recurring cost*. When you pay for the ad, **you pay just once**. When you hire a weaker candidate, **you pay every day** in terms of lower productivity and lower quality results.
In the U.S., a typical annual salary for a postdoc in math might be in the range of $40,000-45,000 (33,000-36,500 €); in CS, it would likely be higher. Even the IEEE price (the highest of those you list) is roughly 1% of that. So, if you're fairly confident you'll get a better candidate by paying for a few ads, IMHO, **you'd be foolish not to do so.**
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The research center I am affiliated with had a difficult time filling a couple of the senior level posts. Basically, they were looking for people with associate professor type qualifications who were willing to work on a 3 year project with limited research freedom, but generous funding. We resorted to using a head hunter, which was a couple of order of magnitude more expensive, but well worth it. The head hunter found candidates that we couldn't.
For studentships and postdocs, I am not sure the people you are looking for are browsing the pay sites. The amount of money is small enough that it is probably worth it, especially if you can get a couple of posts into one advertisement. I would suggest building up your groups network. Talk to your colleagues at other universities. I think in general there isn't a shortage of good phd students and post docs, it is just getting an inside scoop on who they are.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/31 | 1,155 | 4,831 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student at a top-ten university in the UK. I'm just starting the second year of my social science doctorate. I'm way 'ahead' of where I should be at the moment in terms of words written, research done etc, so I've got some time to build my CV and that kind of thing. In the past few months I've come to recognize the critical importance of getting published during the PhD to getting a postdoc at a good University, so I want to get something published. I'm working on two papers on my own - one a full length, one more of an opinion piece (the journal in question calls it a 'viewpoint'), but I recently met at a conference someone I'd be very interested in doing a collaboration with.
So, my basic question is - should I just email him and suggest my idea? Or should I begin by just chatting about the conference? He's a lecturer in another university, one higher up the league tables than we are (not Oxbridge). We got on really well at the conference and had a lot of academic work to talk about. I also considered getting some of his papers/books and getting a much better feel for the details of his work and then starting a conversation based on some questions/comments on his work. This therefore feeds into a wider "mechanics of academia" question - is this how collaborations start in general? Person A just finds a suitable Person B and emails them with an idea for a paper they both have appropriate expertise to write? Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: The best way to start a collaboration is to engage in a face-to-face brainstorming/working session so that you 1) formulate a problem of a mutual interest, 2) jointly sketch a scaffolding of a joint paper, and 3) come up with a plan to proceed, or at least agree on how to arrive to such a plan. Before the meeting consider the topic semi-open (unless you are dead-sure you know what you want to work on with the person), you never know what new/interesting/unexpected will come out of your discussions.
Now to get to a meeting/a few days stay, you need to arrange for a visit at the (future) collaborator's place and it seems that what you are asking is about a particular way to do that. From my personal experience, there is no *right*, nor a *wrong* way to do it. I understand these things in terms of *signalling*. That is, the form is **less** important that the signal you are sending. In my opinion/experience it does not matter whether you write a short notice like
>
> Hello Joe, we met there and there and I got intrigued by the topic we discussed. Would it be possible for me to visit your lab/group and expand on those ideas? Fred.
>
>
>
or expand in a two-page argument about why it is beneficial for both of you to meet. In both cases the signal is the same: **would you be willing to speak to me?** and that is the only thing which matters.
And you should read the reply in exactly the same manner. Whatever is written there, the only thing which matters is whether the answer is **yes, let's see what comes out**, or **no, blah, blah**. All the rest can be discussed during the meeting, given the reply is positive. If it's negative, most probably the collaboration wouldn't work out anyway. Being open-minded is a state of mind, a personality trait.
Now to your concern about the collaborator's higher rank/position at a prominent university: I do not know about the culture and social interactions in communities concerned with humanities, but my general observation is that the *better* a scientist (whatever *better* means), the more humble and modest the person is with respect to the corporate structure and seniority ladder. That is, the majority of really good/respectable researchers in my experience do not care for your rank, they care for what you say.
The point I wanted to convey above is the following:
>
> if the person you want to collaborate with is open minded and thus a potentially a good collaborator, it does not really matter how you approach him/her, **just do it**. In the case you have something important/significant/novel to say, he/she will engage you and the collaboration will start. Just remember, it's you who approached the other party, hence you want something from her/him, therefore it is important that you understand that you will be the driver of the collaboration, at least at the beginning - the ball is initially on your side - unless you touch a topic the other party is working on and has some solutions for anyway.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There's no sense beating around the bush. Just ask. If they are interested they will show a sign. If not, then at least you havn't wasted weeks writing up documents that may never get used. It's flattering to have someone approach you out of the blue.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/07/31 | 738 | 3,099 | <issue_start>username_0: Can international PhD students go do internships during summer in industries?
Does their F1 visa status allow this?
From how I see it, this is neither an OPT or a CPT.
I asked my International Office and they said I could spend a term at another university because then I'm still enrolled Full Time (just at another institution) which I believe is fine with some paperwork. However, they are getting back to me (it's been a while so I am asking here) whether anyone else has done something similar?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes you can, and this is exactly what CPT is for. (assuming you get paid for the internship. If you are not being paid - I'm not sure what the rules are, but it might be easier than CPT)
You can do it for up to 12 month (not necessarily consecutive) during your degree. Check again with your international Office for the exact rules (you might still need to be enrolled to 12 units if not summer quarter/semester).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I was an international undergraduate in the US and I participated in summer research programs twice during those 4 years. This is slightly different from what the OP is asking, since I was working at a different university as opposed to a company. The way it worked for me was the following: I needed a faculty member at my home institution to be my 'sponsor', and I had to register for a 2 credit course over the relevant summer. Having finished my summer research, I was required to give a presentation (to some sort of relevant audience, for example, once to an 'Introduction to Research' class) and submit a journal/report. I believe my supervisor from the institution where I did my summer work was asked for a short report on my activities. That was all.
The biggest hurdle for me was to find summer programs which are willing to accept international students, or at least to fund us (in mathematics, for example, REUs are typically funded by the NSF, which prevents them from accepting international students). In Math I was only able to find 2-3 programs which would do so. There were many more in biology/biochemistry. I have a list around here somewhere if anyone is seeking such information. On the other hand, this might be different if one is looking at industry.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: F-1 visa and his corresponding OPT and CPT are some or what the same for bachelors , Masters and PHD. , you can do internships whenever you want if you are a international student provided the following status.
1. you want to do 40 hour intern in summer - you can apply for CPT.
2. you want to do 20 hr. intern in fall or spring - you can apply for CPT.
3. you want to do 40 hr. intern in fall or spring - you can apply for pre OPT but please note that this is you OPT period.
But all these would work if your university or college agrees on your intern , in my case , I had intern in spring in north and my univ was in South my department denied my CPT since it was far away from my univ stating that it would effect my academic performance.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/08/01 | 2,161 | 8,747 | <issue_start>username_0: I've seen similar questions here, and I wish there was a narrower tag than the broad soft-question and career-development.
I am currently a freshman/sophomore-to-be at a top ten math program in US. My major GPA is around 3.5-3.6, and so is my overall GPA. Due to fast progress in my courses (skipped all lower divs) I will be ready to graduate in a year or year and a half. The question is whether I should do that.
I do not see myself outside of academia, and dead-set on pursuing PhD in math. With my GPA far from being stellar, I was going to take more grad courses to improve the situation. The college is quite pricey, with me being an out-of-state, and so I am not really sure whether I should just graduate and take those courses back home (or apply for masters).
Recap: is it better to graduate early, with an average GPA and no hooks (e.g., research, high Putnam grade, no grad courses), apply for Masters program and save money, or graduate later and improve my record as an undergrad?<issue_comment>username_1: Too long to be a comment, and originally written for Math.SE -
Firstly, if you're set on a math PhD, then you will probably never apply for a Master's program. Most math PhDs apply straight to PhD, and these are generally funded (this is all under the assumption that you stay in the US).
The typical accepted candidate to a good math PhD program has a good background in the following:
1. GPA
2. Research
3. Math knowledge
4. GRE/Math GRE
5. Recommendations
One doesn't need to be perfect at everything, and everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. The exception to this rule is that you must have great recs - there is a certain recommendation inflation right now, and it seems to me that recommendations are judged just as harshly by what is not said. I say this only because without grad courses/research/high gpa, it might be challenging for one of your professors to speak highly on your behalf. Or maybe not - it's case by case, right?
I cannot speak as to how strong your exact application would be, as I don't know the specifics. Your best feedback would probably come from a mentor or advisor from your department, or one of the professors whom you would ask for a recommendation.
Without knowing specifics, I might also ask: what is the rush for? (rhetorically)
As a final note, I should mention that it might be possible, depending on your school's policy, to apply for grad programs and decide to actually graduate only if you get accepted/have positive feedback. But this is not ideal, as it's sort of a punt. Were you to not get accepted, you wouldn't have set up summer plans and your last year would be somewhat hodge-podge. Yet these are the exact things that would improve your application for the next year.
Food for thought.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Your answer will depend partly on what you want to do in academia. If you want to teach, but don't really want to emphasize research much, you might do fine to graduate now. However, if **your goal is to become a professor at a research intensive school, then you really should go to the strongest grad school you can get into.** (Based on your description, I strongly suspect that if you bust your butt for another year or two, in particular working to earn one or two strong letters of rec, you could get into a better grad school than you can currently.)
Yes, I know there are considerations about who you will work with, perhaps geography, potential two-body problems, etc. So, why's it so important to go to the best school you can? Again and again I see that in academia (as everywhere) networking is crucial. Generalizing and stereotyping a bit: *the best schools have the best researchers, who know the other best researchers, who have the biggest grants, which fund the nicest postdocs, etc.* **If you want to thrive as a researcher, you will do well to get into that network.** (To a large extent, it's a rich get richer system.) As an undergrad or early grad student, one way you can get into that network is to work with a professor who is a central part of it, and is willing to weave you in. And your chances of working with said professor typically go up with the reputation of the school.
Now a personal digression. Through high school and undergrad I was in a hurry to get to the next level as soon as possible. I skipped 7th grade, finished undergrad in 3 years, and started grad school at the age of 20. I even turned down a year abroad in the Budapest Semester in Math, because I was worried I'd miss out if I waited too long to get to grad school. The sad truth is that I wasn't ready. Maybe *you* would be; I've never met you, so I can't say.
Eventually (after 8 years), I finished a PhD, and am fairly happy with where my career is headed. However, I don't regret that time in grad school at all. I learned a lot of useful stuff. In fact, I think it's *because* I took my time in grad school that my career has gone as well as it has. One interesting feature of academia is that you're typically judged by your productivity relative to the time since you earned your PhD (rather than your age). As a result, I encourage you to take your time and learn as much as you can. You'll never again have as much free time as you do now.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I want to add a couple of remarks to username_2's excellent answer.
**No, you should not graduate early, unless your finances force it.** Except for cost, there is *no* advantage to finishing early. Admissions committees will compare you to other undergraduate applicants, not other applicants your age; age discrimination is illegal. They will not care about your grades, as long as they're good; everyone applying to those departments has fantastic grades. I suspect almost all applicants to top math departments skipped their low-level math classes. I assume you'll ace the math GRE, but then so will everyone else.
What sets the successful applicants to top PhD programs apart is **strong evidence of research potential**. To gain admission to the top departments you *must* have strong letters *from faculty* that directly praise your potential for mathematical research in specific, personal, and credible detail. The only way to get those letters is to work directly with faculty *outside* the classroom. Fortunately, because you skipped your freshman classes, you have room in your schedule to do that.
You mention "out of state", so I'm guessing you're at a big state school (like mine); your classes so far probably had hundreds of students, and many were taught by graduate students or adjuncts. You have to break out of that; you *must* get to know some faculty. And because you're at a big state school, this is going to require considerable initiative on your part.
Taking graduate classes is a good way to meet faculty, but it's just a start. **Do not just sit quietly in class and get an A.** Meet with your instructor early in the semester, explain you ambition for academia, and ask about opportunities for research and/or independent study. Be prepared to explain what kind of mathematics you're best at, and what kind of math inspires you. The first prof you talk to is not likely to be a good match for your specific interests; ask them for suggestions of other faculty to talk to. Repeat ad infinitum.
There are many other reasons not to graduate early, which are less professional, but no less important. Give yourself some time to grow up.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: To complement other answers: the "research" issue is volatile. Ill-informed, childish "research" is not a plus in applications to elite grad programs. I think it might be more apt to be able to give evidence of \_getting\_in\_sync\_with\_ some contemporary *serious* research, even if one isn't yet able to make one's own contribution. Better to be an apprentice at something serious, than journeyman at something of dubious interest to professionals.
And, the same thing said in a different context: coursework per se is nice, but is (almost entirely) miles away from live mathematics. Thus, the point is not to "bluff" "research", but to get beyond the sterile, formal classroom/textbook mathematics. Live discussions with faculty and presence in seminars are substantive steps in the right direction, without the too-facile pretense that one is doing a big research project in 10 weeks in the summer, based on scant prior information. :)
Being able to have people speak on your behalf, that you have ably moved beyond "school math", and that that's what you are interest in, and have talent for (never mind classrooms) is what will get you into an elite program.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/01 | 1,134 | 4,790 | <issue_start>username_0: Is one incentive their ability to communicate their perceptiveness to people in their general community?
Are there other incentives?<issue_comment>username_1: The principal reason for writing any letter of recommendation is to benefit the person for whom you are writing it. If a student is talented, helping him or her get into a good program is its own incentive. I can't imagine writing a letter with the motive of showing off my perceptiveness.
An additional motive is that others wrote letters for the writer once, and he/she can show gratitude by paying it forward. From David Keyes' excellent essay on [procuring reference letters](http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=1777):
>
> Everyone in a position to write a career-changing letter of reference
> is there by the grace of earlier generations of mentors at school or
> work who poured their lives into today's writer and then wrote about
> the results in now dusty letters. The only gifts today's authors
> expect from today's candidates are those "in kind" or better to be
> delivered to tomorrow's candidates, in one-way cross-generational
> equity. Writers have their own rewards in the success of their
> protégés, and though they will moan to each other about the burden,
> they recognize that reference letters are key components of an
> imperfect system that nevertheless is on the whole effective in
> keeping their discipline healthy and growing.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I guess the best incentive you can give a professor to write you a good letter is to 1) develop a relationship with the professor so that he or she knows something more about you than the grade you earned in their class, and 2) impress them in some way so that he or she has something good to say about you.
I agree with username_1. My sole purpose for writing letters of recommendation is to help the student. Letters of recommendation are read by committees that read hundreds of them every year, and I want the committee to have a strong impression of the student after they read my letter, not of me.
That being said, my students don't automatically get the "best" or "strongest" recommendation I can write. They get the recommendation they earn. For example, I cannot justify describing a C student as having strong academic potential. I can't write favorably about an undergraduate who signed up for a research project and then never showed up. And, I usually cannot say all that much about students I don't know very well. No matter what, I will take what I know about the student's strengths and weaknesses and try to paint the best picture possible; it just might not be glowing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As others have said, the main incentive is to help the students.
But recommendation letters are also a service to the departments who read them. *Your colleagues* will read your letters to help them make admissions or hiring decisions.
Moreover, over time, faculty build up reputations for the kinds of letters they write. Faculty that are known to write overly effusive letters (as an extreme example: "best student in five years!" every year) are not taken seriously. On the other hand, a strong letter from someone who is known to write measured but accurate letters has a big impact. So writing perceptive letters is not useful only to the present student, but to future students as well.
The reputation effect becomes more significant (but more entangled with *research* reputation) as you climb the academic food chain. For graduate admissions, it's fairly subtle. For faculty hiring, it's much more noticeable, because hiring letters tend to come from a smaller pool. For tenure and promotion, where the pool of writers is even smaller, the reputation effect is quite significant.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to the excellent points others made, it reflects well on a faculty member and a department for their students to be successful. While I primarily write letters for the benefit of the students, it's great to be able to say when recruiting other students, or when talking to the Provost, that our graduates are getting great jobs.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In addition to the other reasons that have been discussed by other answers, many of which are true, there is one more fairly distinct reason: They may some day need a letter in return.
For example, there are often nomination letters for awards, or promotions from students. I've been in the position to write at least three letters for someone who wrote me a letter of recommendation in the past, and while I'd like to think it didn't bias my letter, it certainly made it easier to justify the time and effort that went into crafting it.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/08/02 | 1,002 | 4,345 | <issue_start>username_0: Say I am post-doc in the USA, and my PI (principal investigator) just published a review **I wrote**, with pictures **I took of my experiments** without putting my name as the author. What tools do I have at my disposal to get what is rightfully mine?<issue_comment>username_1: The Committee on Publication Ethics has published [reports](http://publicationethics.org/category/keywords/disputed-authorship) on a number of cases of this sort.
I do not know very much about this, but it appears that the COPE is an independent organization who investigate and provide advice on ethical questions involving scholarly publication, upon request; they do not have an enforcement role. As one might expect, the cases they discuss vary widely in circumstances and in outcomes (and in many cases the outcomes were never reported back to COPE). They generally begin with the objecting author contacting the journal's editor, and in some cases the defending author's institutional authorities become involved. As to outcomes, when the complaint was determined to be justified, a common response was to publish a note in the journal correcting the authorship; in some other cases the article was retroactively withdrawn.
I am **not** offering this as advice on how to proceed; I don't have enough experience to offer any useful advice at all. I just thought it might be helpful as context.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The first thing to do is to realize that you are on dangerous ground and that nothing good is going to come out of this situation. Having your colleagues (including your PI) think that you are accusing your PI of academic dishonesty is a major black mark against you, even if your PI has done something wrong.
While it is important to vent, you need to do this very carefully. You cannot vent to any of your work colleagues or anyone who knows your PI. Even a post in a public forum like this is dangerous. Yelling in your closet at home is probably best. Even better would be in a closet in a hotel in a foreign country. I am not kidding, no one can know about this until you can deal with it calmly.
Once you can calmly deal with the issue calmly, schedule a meeting with your PI to ask what you could have done to get authorship on the review. Do not accuse your PI of stealing your work, or even hint that you deserved authorship. Hopefully this discussion goes well.
If the discussion doesn't go well, or even if it does, after a little bit, schedule a different meeting to discuss authorship on all the work you are currently undertaking. This is something that doesn't get done enough, and can cause major problems like this.
At that point you will hopefully have a clear understanding of your PI's policies on authorship. Now you need to decide if they are unfair, or were not applied in the case of this review. If the PI's policies are unfair (or not applied fairly), you need to find a new advisor ASAP. Once you have secured another position, but not before, think about leveeing accusations of academic dishonesty.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Go to the graduate college with proof and talk to dean. It's unethical and the PI should at a minimum be reprimanded publicly. I don't think it matters what others think as long as you are honest and can prove your points. The exception is that you are happy in your position.. Of course talk to the PI first if you haven't already and find out why. There is nothing dangerous about this and its cut and dry. Stop fearing these A-Holes and cut them of at the knees - they aren't as immune to the system as they want you to believe and I am sick of the fear factor. The person that should be worried is the PI if they are behaving bad, just saying!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I know a PhD candidate in Norway that had the same issue with one co-author (the supervisor). Right after the paper was submitted without consent, the candidate sent an email to the journal editors and they rejected the paper based on evidence and for the sake of doubt. They asked the supervisor to re-submit the paper with signed declarations by all the authors and contribution declarations. At the end, the supervisor recognized that the paper was submitted without consent and the paper re-submitted with a new approved version.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/02 | 1,084 | 4,586 | <issue_start>username_0: <NAME> offers a [discount to his seminars](http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/courses) for "full-time teaching faculty" (as well as full-time students).
Does "full-time teaching" exclude full-time faculty who spend part time doing research? Does advising count as teaching?
---
**Update**
I contacted the organizer and they clarified that "full-time teaching" excludes most "research" faculty; it is intended for faculty whose primary job is to teach, not research faculty who also teach.<issue_comment>username_1: The Committee on Publication Ethics has published [reports](http://publicationethics.org/category/keywords/disputed-authorship) on a number of cases of this sort.
I do not know very much about this, but it appears that the COPE is an independent organization who investigate and provide advice on ethical questions involving scholarly publication, upon request; they do not have an enforcement role. As one might expect, the cases they discuss vary widely in circumstances and in outcomes (and in many cases the outcomes were never reported back to COPE). They generally begin with the objecting author contacting the journal's editor, and in some cases the defending author's institutional authorities become involved. As to outcomes, when the complaint was determined to be justified, a common response was to publish a note in the journal correcting the authorship; in some other cases the article was retroactively withdrawn.
I am **not** offering this as advice on how to proceed; I don't have enough experience to offer any useful advice at all. I just thought it might be helpful as context.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The first thing to do is to realize that you are on dangerous ground and that nothing good is going to come out of this situation. Having your colleagues (including your PI) think that you are accusing your PI of academic dishonesty is a major black mark against you, even if your PI has done something wrong.
While it is important to vent, you need to do this very carefully. You cannot vent to any of your work colleagues or anyone who knows your PI. Even a post in a public forum like this is dangerous. Yelling in your closet at home is probably best. Even better would be in a closet in a hotel in a foreign country. I am not kidding, no one can know about this until you can deal with it calmly.
Once you can calmly deal with the issue calmly, schedule a meeting with your PI to ask what you could have done to get authorship on the review. Do not accuse your PI of stealing your work, or even hint that you deserved authorship. Hopefully this discussion goes well.
If the discussion doesn't go well, or even if it does, after a little bit, schedule a different meeting to discuss authorship on all the work you are currently undertaking. This is something that doesn't get done enough, and can cause major problems like this.
At that point you will hopefully have a clear understanding of your PI's policies on authorship. Now you need to decide if they are unfair, or were not applied in the case of this review. If the PI's policies are unfair (or not applied fairly), you need to find a new advisor ASAP. Once you have secured another position, but not before, think about leveeing accusations of academic dishonesty.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Go to the graduate college with proof and talk to dean. It's unethical and the PI should at a minimum be reprimanded publicly. I don't think it matters what others think as long as you are honest and can prove your points. The exception is that you are happy in your position.. Of course talk to the PI first if you haven't already and find out why. There is nothing dangerous about this and its cut and dry. Stop fearing these A-Holes and cut them of at the knees - they aren't as immune to the system as they want you to believe and I am sick of the fear factor. The person that should be worried is the PI if they are behaving bad, just saying!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I know a PhD candidate in Norway that had the same issue with one co-author (the supervisor). Right after the paper was submitted without consent, the candidate sent an email to the journal editors and they rejected the paper based on evidence and for the sake of doubt. They asked the supervisor to re-submit the paper with signed declarations by all the authors and contribution declarations. At the end, the supervisor recognized that the paper was submitted without consent and the paper re-submitted with a new approved version.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/04 | 1,508 | 6,369 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm thinking of posting slides from some of my technical presentations online. One option I've used in the past is just posting the PDFs. But I've seen some sites that offer nice interfaces for others to view and share your slides without downloading them, such as
* [SpeakerDeck](https://speakerdeck.com)
* [Slideshare](http://www.slideshare.net/)
* [Present.me](http://present.me/)
I am primarily interested in advertising my research to other researchers who might be interested in using it or collaborating.
Which site should I use, and why? Or are raw PDFs the way to go?
In case it matters, I'm a computational mathematician and my slides are a mixture of text, equations, plots, short videos, and diagrams.<issue_comment>username_1: From what I can see, some key issues to think about are:
* Social media integration and analytics. These sites will help you advertise your presentation and gather data on who views it.
* Downloading. You can make it inconvenient or impossible to download the slides. That's an advantage if you want to control the presentation and keep anyone from archiving a copy or extracting figures (you can't stop someone determined and knowledgeable, but you can stop casual users).
* Accessibility on devices. My smartphone cannot view Present.me presentations at all, and it has a little trouble with SpeakerDeck and Slideshare presentations. (I can view them, but they are awfully small and I cannot zoom in.) I don't usually view slides on my phone, but I do every so often.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1, but I want to add an additional key issue:
* Rendering Compatibility: Can whichever method you choose properly render all of your content? I have had trouble converting PowerPoint files containing chemical structures drawn in ChemDraw (which are vector graphic objects). Creating PDFs seems to be hit or miss depending on the method I use. Notably, Office is better at it than Adobe software. Slideshare will not render these objects at all. I do not have experience with Present.me or SpeakerDeck.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I typically **post my slides on my website as pdfs**. On the **title page of my slides**, I have started adding a line that says something like **"slides available on my preprint page"**, and sometimes I'll mention this at the start of my talk. On my website, I have a page for all my slides and I also link to the relevant slides on my preprints page. Personally, I prefer when speakers make their slides available as pdfs, because I like being able to download them and file them away, rather than needing to bookmark a website. Similar to my preprints, I'm *excited* to have folks download my slides (so I don't see any reason to control their distribution).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I found [scribd](http://www.scribd.com/) to be useful in sharing files/papers. You can also know who accessed and downloaded your paper or at least you would know how many times it was downloaded.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you want to keep track of the people viewing our work, [Figshare](http://figshare.com) might be worth a try.
I do not think they provide the nicest viewer for presentation, but they keep track of the people viewing and sharing your work. They also enable your work to be citable but providing a permanent link to it. The only drawback is that once you publicly publish something, they do not allow you to remove it...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: If your presentation is in LaTeX, you may want to try [**writeLATEX**](https://www.writelatex.com/). You can actually make your presentation in writeLATEX, and share it from there once it is ready.
---
**Google Docs** is another option that allows you to:
1. [Embed the presentation on your site with a nice interface](http://support.google.com/docs/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=86101).
2. Provide a public link to the presentation, where viewers will have the option to download as PDF, PowerPoint or Text.
3. [Make lists of viewers (possible contributors) authorized to comment or edit](http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2494886&rd=1).
Additionally,
While making the presentation:
1. Work from school, home or anywhere with an internet connection, without the need of manually synchronize.
2. Work collaboratively, collaborators can edit or comment.
3. Revision history (who changed what) with the possibility to revert changes.
During the presentation:
1. See your notes using *speaker notes*.
2. Present remotely using *Google+ Hangouts*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I am one of the developers of SlideWiki and would suggest you to use that (<http://slidewiki.org>)
SlideWiki *features* include:
* WYSIWYG slide authoring
* Logical slide and deck representation
* LaTeX/MathML integration
* Multilingual decks / semi-automatic translation in 50+ languages
* PowerPoint/HTML import
* Source code highlighting within slides
* Dynamic CSS themability and transitions
* Social networking activities
* Full revisioning and branching of slides and decks
* E-Learning with self-assessment questionnaires
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: SlideJar is a great platform (<http://www.slidejar.com>) since it provides search and results at a slide level. It also has a way for you to provide real value to the folks who you want to share with as they can mash up individual slides into new presentations and save them for later reference. ANyone can set up their own slidejar site (see <http://neillasher.slidejar.com> as a reference) and can actually earn revenue by people mashing up their slides and saving them.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: If you are specifically interested in getting your research out there and tracking who looks at your research, I suggest ResearchGate: <https://www.researchgate.net>
ResearchGate is generally for developing a research profile for yourself based on your publications and communication with other researchers. But recently I have noticed people uploading presentations to their profile which then get added to their publication record on the site. People can provide feedback on the presentations and the site provides some decent analytics on activity. It also provides a means for people to cite the work.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/04 | 387 | 1,358 | <issue_start>username_0: To keep it short I already have a BS and MS in a physical science from decent schools. I want to apply next year for a MS or PhD in ECE and thought I should get some formal programming on my transcript first. I have only one intro class on there now.
I'm not having much luck finding any online courses that don't look like scams or poorly set up at best. I was pretty excited to see that [Oregon state](http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/new-online-post-baccalaureate-computer-science-degree) is offering a post-bacc BS degree but the tuition is $600 a credit.
So I guess I'm looking for legitimate courses that aren't crazy expensive. Is there anything else out there like the Oregon state program? That's exactly what I'm looking for.<issue_comment>username_1: You may want to try Coursera. [Their courses](https://www.coursera.org/courses) are quite good and the instructors are some of the top computer scientists in their fields.
They give you a certificate signed by the instructor if you finish the course well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You can use this [tool](http://www.distancelearning.com/degrees/computers-and-it/) and refine your search, and also checkout this [article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/the-top-online-colleges-u_n_1194479.html) from Huffington Post.
~Hope this helps.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/08/04 | 854 | 3,585 | <issue_start>username_0: Some people, when asking a question at the end of a seminar, make comments on the talk first along the lines of "great talk," "really enjoyed this talk," or similar phrases. Is this a desirable thing to do? I've noticed that most people don't do this, but some of my favorite scientists do.<issue_comment>username_1: If it's your honest opinion, then I would compliment the talk. However, I wouldn't do it just to be polite. There is no need for false kindness.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: My personal preference is **not to offer a compliment in this setting**. It often strikes me as less sincere (off-handed or perfunctory). If I really want to compliment someone, I tend to catch up with them later and start with something like "I really enjoyed your talk. If you have a minute to talk, I have a question for you about..." On the other hand, I know that some people feel like asking questions (especially if they are critical of some aspect of the work) can feel hostile, and so they find the compliment as a good way to off-set that.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I think if you reason why you compliment the person, like "I really enjoyed your talk **because** [state your specific reason here]", it will always be warmly accepted.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree with the other posters.
Personally, I try to make my tone of voice, attitude and choice of words respectful when asking a question while the conference is in session (and of course otherwise). I try to indicate indirectly that I enjoyed the talk (if indeed I did), without offering a direct compliment.
You note your favourite scientists being complimentary to speakers. I expect that these scientists are well-established, well-regarded and that they know that any praise from them would be a particular boost to, in particular, more junior scientists.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: When asking a question, it is desirable to explicitly establish a non-confrontational tone. **It is natural and common (though of course not correct) to interpret even well-meaning questions in an antagonistic way.** If the speaker feels threatened, they will be less able to focus on the content of the question and may instead become defensive. **A question that is interpreted as non-confrontational is therefore likely to get a better answer.**
Complimenting the speaker is one way to make your subsequent question non-confrontational, and is a good idea as long as you are sincere. Other ways include saying something nice about the topic itself ("you're studying a very interesting question"), smiling, and carefully controlling your tone of voice. These are especially important if your question amounts to a criticism of the presented material.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Somewhat like @username_2 suggested...
If you really felt inspired and got something new from the talk you should offer verbal appreciation. If you very much liked the presentation and is relevant to your research, it would be a good idea to talk in person.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: It is not desirable, but you can do it if you want. But do it shortly, because there is not a lot of time for questions after a talk.
Personally, I think that saving the compliment as a way to start a discussion later with the speaker is preferable.
To tell the truth, I also think that, except for clarification requests, questions are better asked in a discussion with the speaker, after the session. This is the only way to have complete and clear answers.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/04 | 2,642 | 11,486 | <issue_start>username_0: In general, building on unpublished work of another author, which he may have told you in confidence, or you may encountered as a reviewer or by word of mouth or other informal means, is not an acceptable practice. Does the same apply if the author has uploaded his work on arXiv?
Here's a specific scenario: Suppose I submit a paper for review to a journal. The paper has results that could possibly be extended, however, the idea for extension is either not obvious or is not compatible with the theme of the paper, so I may plan to keep it for a later paper. If I put the paper on arXiv would it be considered ok if someone else extends my results? This would ruin the theme of the other paper I wanted to write with the extension.
If this happened to me it would make me uncomfortable, as if my confidence has been breached. I don't know if this feeling is justified. This feeling stems from my view of arXiv. My personal theory is that arXiv is an informal medium, unlike journals and conferences, and in that sense it is no different from other channels of informal communication. It allows for structured and faster dissemination of work (thus inform the ongoing work of others), in addition to establishing priority of results, but that does not grant it a formal status. I think an author should exercise restraint in extending results from arXiv, and apply the same standards that he would if he were to encounter the work through classical informal channels.
Of course, this is just my theory. I would like to hear what others have to say about this issue.<issue_comment>username_1: I understand your logic, but I do not think that many people treat papers on arXiv in that way. Papers on arXiv are public unlike the papers you reviewed or the work you just heard by personal communication. As such, extending the results in a paper on arXiv is a perfectly acceptable practice as long as the second paper cites the paper on arXiv properly.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I feel like publishing something on arXiv is an act of "publishing" nonetheless.
It has the advantages of publishing. These include: getting your work out there (with more visibility than if simply posting it on your webpage , which requires people be looking for your articles), getting people interested in it, and perhaps even getting citations before the paper has gone through the long and grueling process of being validated by a journal. It also had the advantage of showing that this is your result, thus preventing anybody from "preempting" you.
But then it also has the "disadvantage" that someone may run with your idea, and extend it, possibly even obtaining a result that is more significant than your own.
This does not mean publishing things on arXiv should be seen as a risk. It means that publishing on arXiv, like anywhere else, should be a well-thought decision. Note that with all the turmoil surrounding official journals, and common practices, it seems we are slowly evolving towards archives such as arXiv getting increasing legitimacy.
So to answer your question: an article on arXiv is not "unpublished" at all (unlike papers you get to read as a referee, or which a colleague has shared with you in confidence---those are other issues altogether), so yes, there is generally nothing wrong with extending results.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: As the other replies say, putting your paper on a public archive is a way of making it public, and so other researchers may build on the results.
One thing to do when you want to make your work public, but you're also working on extensions that will take more time to establish, is to explicitly write in the paper you publish that you have an ongoing work on those extensions.
This at least lets people know what the situation is. You can't control what people are going to do with this information, but I think that reasonable people would not immediately start working on the same extensions, and, if at some point they do want to work on these extensions, they are likely to contact you to check what's going on.
Of course, this "ongoing work" statement should be used only when it's appropriate and there's really an ongoing work that is likely to be completed within a reasonable amount of time.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> There is however one more important distinction between arXiv and journals/conferences. Whatever is published in journals/conferences is final and can no more be revised. It is as if the author has said all that he has to say on the topic and it is now fair game for others to say what they want.
>
>
>
Whether this is a meaningful distinction depends on the circumstances: it's common to write a series of papers on a given topic, in which case no single paper contains all the author has to say on the topic.
The other answers have clearly explained how the communities that use the arXiv view this matter. However, I'd go a step further: a system where people could stake out credit for unpublished work while preventing other people from building on it would be bad for science. Currently, this is the trade-off researchers face. You can keep your ideas private for as long as you want, to give you time to exploit them fully. However, you run the risk that someone else may independently discover them. In that case, the best you can hope for is to share the credit if you promptly make your work public (and make a convincing case that it was independent). On the other hand, if you circulate a paper publicly, then you no longer need to worry about credit, but anyone can use your ideas. This is very reasonable: credit is not awarded for being smart or accomplished, but rather for contributing to the community, and that contribution is the ideas. Being able to use and build on these ideas is why they are so valuable, and this is the justification for awarding credit.
The alternative to this trade-off would be to allow researchers to claim credit while temporarily reserving the exclusive right to do follow-up work. In that case, the optimal strategy would be clear: make a public announcement as soon as you cross the neecessary threshold, but then delay finalizing the work for as long as possible. This would be very disruptive for the research community.
In practice, things are slightly less black and white than I've described them above. It can be considered rude to compete too strenuously without a very good reason. If you come up with a minor idea building on someone else's work in progress, it's common to donate it to them rather than competing, and a major idea may lead to a collaboration. However, this is a matter of politeness rather than ethics.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: In mathematics, it is very common to build on papers that are on arXiv. Indeed, this is more or less the whole point of arXiv: to disseminate work faster than the journal publication cycle, so that the community can immediately begin to make use of it, which includes extending it. If you wait until the paper is published, you will be well behind the curve.
I don't think your reservations about building on "unpublished" work are applicable here. At least in mathematics, preprints are generally posted on arXiv at the same time as they are *submitted* for publication; they are thus already in the "final" form intended by the authors. Of course it may be that further revisions take place before publication (perhaps as a result of the peer review process), but the arXiv version is usually perfectly suitable as a foundation for future work.
However, a few extra caveats are in order:
* Since a paper from arXiv has not passed peer review yet, you should probably be even more diligent than usual about checking its results before using them. If you find errors or unclear points, it would behoove you to alert the authors, since they may be able to be corrected before publication.
* Conversely, you should also keep an eye out for updates to the preprint which may contain important corrections.
* You may certainly cite the arXiv preprint in your own paper. However, you should check for a published version before final acceptance of your own (and again when correcting the proofs), and update the citation if necessary.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I upvoted all the earlier answers... and want to reiterate certain points. First, arXiv (and stable personally-maintained web-sites, e.g., at universities) should count as "publication" in the sense of making the information *available*, which is the ideal point of research.
Yes, there is some conflict with "the other" point, namely, staking a claim, getting credit, getting a job, getting tenure. But, as others have pointed out, it would have a bad effect if one could "stake a claim" without divulging details, thereby stifling others' work (if they needed to hope to get some "credit" also).
(There has always been an analogous hazard for beginners, all the worse pre-internet, that senior people can be "rumored" to be "working on something", circulated in mimeo to friends, etc. Mercifully, this is now diminished, I think, exactly because there's no excuse for limiting circulation.)
As <NAME> and others said, of *course* it is more civil to offer collaboration rather than to compete directly, etc., and this is vastly more consistent with our ideal of advancing knowledge (rather than mere *self*-advancement, as necessary as some of the latter may be).
In summary, then, yes, a relative novice risks having their ideas taken up by more experienced people. Yes, in particular, some people are able to rationalize that non-refereed papers need not be cited at all! This is, of course, barbaric. :)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: There is a risk in releasing your results early (since others may build on your work before you do it), but there is also a risk in *not* doing it (since an article doing the exact same thing may appear before you make your preprint public).
There are also other advantages in publishing early (and, more in general, making your work known in conferences before it is fully peer-reviewed):
* instead of "stealing your ideas", people may contact you and propose a collaboration.
* if people know your work, they can cite you.
That is why I suggest releasing early, at least in my field (numerical linear algebra --- which, I realize, is a quite friendly and relaxed field, so your mileage may vary).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: A few points to add -
Why publish things on arxiv? So that others know your results. This is only relevant if you can get others to start using your results. It'll increase your citation count and speed up progress. You run the risk of getting people who publish things you want to do in the future.
What to do about the risk? You can explicitly state you plan on doing X. If I'm already doing X, that might light a fire and get me to quickly finish. Or I might try to collaborate with you. If I'm not already doing X, would it be wise for me to compete with you? I don't know how far along you are, but you're almost surely ahead of me - would I really put in the effort to try to catch up with such a high risk of being scooped? No.
So if you tell people you plan to do an extension the real risk you run is that someone else who is already doing it might speed up their work, not that someone will come along and start up quickly.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/06 | 839 | 3,303 | <issue_start>username_0: I often find academics with tenured bracketed beside their position. What is meant by a tenured position? Is this different from a permanent teaching position?<issue_comment>username_1: In short, tenure means that you cannot be fired (you have a very permanent position). For more details, look at this question:
[In practice, how secure is a tenured position in the US?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/185/in-practice-how-secure-is-a-tenured-position-in-the-us) In particular, look at the first link in the [first answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/186/15723) to that question, which is an article in *Science* that talks about the role of tenure.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To have tenure is an acknowledgement from the host institution of the academic's record of published research, teaching and contribution to the administrative life of their department/institute/college.
It is difficult, but not impossible, to fire a tenured academic from their host institution. See e.g. <http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/dismissal.htm>
An academic with tenure is typically only dismissable on very serious grounds of misconduct. That it is so difficult to dismiss a tenured academic arises, historically, from the idea that university researchers should enjoy **academic freedom** - the ability to research unfavourable topics, persue and advance unpopular or controversial theories, to challenge the status quo without fear of reprisal in the form of dismissal.
The tenure system is itself, somewhat controversial, see e.g. <http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2012/07/how_to_save_tenurecut_it_way_b.html>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The implementation is a tenure contract, which specifies a starting salary, starting date, and often a maximum duration (e.g. 30 years). Other possible details include startup funds (e.g. US$1M over 10 years), lab space (dry/wet lab, exclusive use square footage), and access to shared facilities (big experimental equipment). Lab space and shared facilities aren't free, so the cost is often deducted from your startup funds.
There may be requirements in the contract about the maximum number of days you can spend off-campus doing consulting work, the minimum amount of lab activity required to be considered active (papers per year, grants submitted/funded per year, students trained per year), minimum service work (hours spent on committees, hours spent writing policy documents), and minimum teaching commitment.
If you fail to meet the minimums, your department may start to revoke some of your privileges. You may wish to read this other [question about enforcement of the policies](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/185/in-practice-how-secure-is-a-tenured-position-in-the-us/5521#5521).
There's a wide variation between different universities and departments about what gets written in the contract and what is actually required due to departmental politics. The political part of the equation can be a lot more important than the text in the contract on a day-to-day basis. Consider what could happen if the department runs out of lab space or if you have trouble getting new grant funding for a couple years.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/07 | 1,665 | 6,728 | <issue_start>username_0: In this day and age, with more and more people going the self-publishing route, I'd be interested in experiences from/opinions about how to go about having your self-published book properly peer-reviewed.<issue_comment>username_1: In mathematics, traditionally, and I think currently, very few books are reviewed at all in any serious sense. One possible sense would be "critical appraisal", and this is rare: a handful of books is given serious reviews in the Amer. Math. Soc.'s "Bulletin". The other possible sense of "peer review" is in a sense adding something to one's CV for jobs, tenure, promotion, grants. Almost by definition, this never happens. That is, "refereeing" is done for the conventional *journals*, whether paper or electronic, and referees are solicited by the editors, for *papers* submitted to that journal. The "valuation" of books is typically done not via "reviews", but by the status of the publishing house, and the status gain from publishing a book is probably less than a small paper in a medium-status journal. Thus, in particular, self-publication confers none of that cachet. And I'd wager that self-publication would compromise "review" in the sense of *appraisal*, as well, because other publications would have higher priority for the reason of status.
(I do hope things improve, but I do think this is the current state, in mathematics.)
Edit: As examples of "self-publication", disregarding the "peer review" idea entirely, a certain number of relatively senior (and not only!) people put book-like items on-line at their web-sites, often at universities. I heartily endorse this (and have been doing it myself for quite a while!) However (?), this appears to confer even less status than "books" published in physical hard-cover, I presume because there has been no hurdle of sufficiently-impressing publishers (who do ask opinions before "consenting" to publish).
The more legitimate issue of "(peer?) review" to ascertain correctness, or helpfulness, etc., I think has so few precedents that little is happening. First, Math Reviews has no procedure in place to review such things, and it doesn't happen. Second, there appears to be considerable reticence to *cite* such things, even in stable situations, for a variety of (not entirely sensible) reasons. Third, while one might imagine that on-line, thus, *dynamic*, documents *could* be *more* reliable, by virtue of being *correctible* (indefinitely!), this actually disturbs/perturbs many people... Further, third(b), disappointingly to me, very, very few people have ever given me any feeback/corrections about my on-line stuff, or even asked for clarification (in some cases leading to correction or, anyway, better writing). I can imagine that some of this is politeness, or respect, which is understandable.
But, I might claim, the real "problem" is lack of precedent. The "refereed journal" model is 150+ years old, and itself depended upon evolution beyond the "reading before the Academy" 200+ years ago when printing itself was a non-trivial matter, etc.
Thus, rethinking the action-oriented sense of the original question: since "self-published" ought mean nothing, really, in today's context, apart from the fact that it doesn't have a "prior" approval from status-conferring entities... to "get an expert opinion" one ("gosh, let's just try to think clearly for a sec!" :) would send th'thing to (web-obtained?) experts, asking very politely whether they'd be so kind as to offer critical remarks... and as a very polite secondary question, whether they'd be willing to be quoted in such remarks.
(This has led me to thinking that the difficulty in quantifying "civility" and "politness", especially between different generations (if only in convention and usage), potentially causes substantial difficulties in on-line forums, and/or "stack-exchanges", and or . Not that I think high-status entities have a "moral" superiority, which is the stereotypical exaggeration-to-disqualify, and which is a popular (mis-) interpretation of that elite, but that experience *can* be worth something, and that something is not easily acquired by any other means.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The question is extremely vague. The OP could be a professor of creative writing who has written a novel, a math professor who wrote a calculus textbook, a sociology professor who wrote a monograph on water rights in 19th-century Oregon, or a physics crank who wrote a book proving Einstein wrong.
In the case that this is research: --- In some fields of academia (e.g., literature, sociology), it's normal to publish books and monographs on one's research, and these are considered professional pluses (e.g., for tenure). In other fields (such as physics), this is not normally done, and a book is not a feather in the author's cap. If this is a field where research often is published in book form, then the way to get peer review is to submit the book to publishing houses, whose acquisition editors, if they think the proposal/manuscript has possible merit, may try to get academics in the field to review it. Yes, the acquisition editor is a gatekeeper. No, there is no way to get around the gatekeeper and convince random academics that they should read a manuscript. There's a reason that acquisition editors are paid money. It's because the job they do is dreary and thankless. Random academics are not going to wade through a slush pile for free.
In the case that this is a textbook: --- There is a model that has been going on forever, which is that you distribute the book to your students via the best available technology of your era (quill pens, purple mimeos, internet), hone the book over years of teaching the same course over and over, and then, finally, send it out to publishers. A typical modern exmaple of this model is that <NAME> posted his textbook on general relativity on the internet [here](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/?9712019) in 1997, and in 2003 it was published in dead-tree format by <NAME>. If, like <NAME>, you're ethical, you make sure that your own students can get the book without paying you money. If you succeed in getting the book published in print by a traditional publisher, you can usually, if it's important to you, negotiate a clause in your contract allowing you to keep the book online for free.
Some people do self-publish textbooks as an alternative to traditional dead-tree publishing (rather than as a preliminary to dead-tree or a last resort after failing at dead-tree). A few of these projects are successful in the sense of gaining adoptions by other professors. This path does not involve peer review.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/07 | 607 | 2,500 | <issue_start>username_0: It was discussed in prospect of PhD research proposal [previously](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/117/675), but this question is for all ages of researchers.
* What factors should one take into consideration before selecting a research field?<issue_comment>username_1: Some points for STEM:
* [What are worldwide current emerging technologies?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emerging_technologies) Which topics become attention by scholars, industry and funding institutions in journals.
* Funding: What topics (like green energy in Germany) are on the local research agenda of your country for the next decades?
* Fundamental research: where are contradictions of widely-accepted but incomplete theories in a field. Are the major paradigms consistent? (e.g. bringing together general relativity and particle physics). See my answer [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/1458/213) on open problems
* Meterology improvement/measurement methodology. Often very tricky, time- and cost-intensive engineering problems, but often making falsification/discovering of new phenomenons possible at all, opportunity to develop patents
* Are there enough possible and qualified students, scholars for collaboration in a special (new) research field you can hire/attract? Of course, someone has to make the first step, but in STEM money and manpower is often the crucial factor to compete with other research groups, otherwise it's easy to waste a lot of money and time while someone already published the results you are still trying to measure. Without good students and a well-equipped lab it will be hard to attract money, students and scholars. In Germany you see this in form of "clustering" of several research institutions interested in semiconductors and chip-technology in German silicon valley near the city of Dresden.
* Can you and your group dive easily into a new or related research topic? Do you have the infrastructure, is the gap of knowledge too big? How big is the risk, if you fail in this topic or it becomes suddenly un-trendy/unimportant. That's why research groups often do some diversification of research interests. Don't put all your money on a single stock.
* a really good nose, overview and knowledge of current state of the art and knowledge.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: * **Are you passionate about it?**
* **Are you good at it?**
* **Will people pay you to do it?**
Everything else is noise.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/08/08 | 958 | 4,298 | <issue_start>username_0: Does it usually happen even if all of the adviser's students have very different research interests?<issue_comment>username_1: These meetings can serve a variety of purposes, but many of them fall into the broad category of **keeping the adviser and all the group members updated on what everyone in the group is doing**. Below are some of the secondary benefits of a group meeting:
* saves the adviser time (compared to meeting with students individually)
* motivates the students to keep doing work, so they have something to report at the meeting
* fosters a sense of community with the group
* provides the students experience giving informal presentations
* often leads to the more senior students mentoring the junior students
To answer your follow-up question in the description, **no, some faculty meet with each student individually**; in fact these separate meetings are common, for example, in mathematics.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Aside from Dan's answer, which is probably one of the main points, having the lab members present in group meetings also helps significantly in developing public speaking skills in a low-pressure environment. Many of the lab meetings that I've attended focused on the ability of the presenter, often a graduate student, to present an idea clearly, concisely, and persuasively. As an added bonus, at well-run meetings, there are often many questions, which helps the presenter learn to field (sometimes difficult) questions on-the-fly. These skills are pretty important in academia.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As one of these advisors who has both individual meetings with students as well as group meetings, I can attest that I use the group meetings more for skills development rather than just rehashing research-related issues.
It serves a number of purposes:
* Presentation of skills and tools that will be useful to the entire group (for example, in my group, that means programming tools, content management software like Git or Subversion), as well as things like "How do you write an abstract?"
* Presentation by group members of their own research work
* Presentation by group members of *other people's work* (often through a discussion of a paper in the literature, or a group of papers clustered around a common topic)
Now, my group happens to be bifurcated in purpose: I have people working in two very different application fields. I still have everybody present to the entire group for the simple reason that if they can't inform group members with whom they have methods and techniques in common about their research, how are they going to explain their work to anybody else?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: While I generally agree with the other answers, I see three additional purposes of group meetings that I cannot accomplish easily in my individual meetings. While the meetings are weekly, I like to have lab members think about the upcoming month.
* Notifications about upcoming events: I might tell people about an upcoming conference deadline at our individual meetings, but I often will forget to tell someone.
* Management of shared resources: Getting everyone to briefly say what they are planning to do in the upcoming weeks often highlights that there is going to be high demand for a resource and lets us work out alternative arrangements
* Managing my (PIs) time: Maybe this is also a shared resource, but I try and let people know my teaching, marking, reviewing, writing, etc loads. I also try and get people to tell me what they want me to do over the next month. I think this helps people (both myself and lab members) adjust their schedules so that we can tackle tasks efficiently.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: The main purpose is to waste some time. Probably the only thing that does not happen during these meetings is work. Unfortunately, lot of managers and professors think that we need to meet in order to know what everyone else is doing (seen from PhD position). We **do** meet each other in the coffee room, in the lab, while commuting, after hours, in the elevator and so on. We talk. We know. If we have a problem, we talk. Sorry for the rant, but I had to counterweight all the positivity in other answers.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/08 | 474 | 2,122 | <issue_start>username_0: What are the appropriate limits when criticizing the previously published work of others that you're citing in a paper? Are there limits with respect to maintaining decorum and decency?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally speaking, any critiques should be brief and directed (i.e., "the cited works failed to consider in their analysis", "to simplify their model, they assumed , whereas in reality ").
If you're criticizing **assumptions**, be sure to specifically state which assumptions you challenge, and clearly deliniate (with references) why they are incorrect. Note that many papers use incorrect assumptions to begin work in a new field, and your critique should recognize that (i.e., "The seminal paper assumed [1]. We extend this work by removing said assumption.")
If you're criticizing **conclusions**, again state specifically which conclusion you disagree with, and be sure to provide data/analyses to back up your conclusion.
If you're challenging their **data**, note that (in neuroscience, at least) this is perfectly common; findings differ all the time. Progress often stems from finding the cause of these differences between data. You should note the difference and mention something along the lines of "Our findings differ from those of [1], and we believe this is because ". Note that it is almost a requirement to mention something like this; if you don't, (1) the researchers whose paper you missed will probably mildly insulted, and (2) people familiar with the field will assume you didn't do your basic literature search, which makes you look stupid.
Needless to say, ad hominem attacks are always inappropriate and should never appear in scientific literature.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that simply by thinking in terms of "criticism" you have already gone too far. I try and point out what the previous work has done and demonstrate how my work builds on that. Things like reducing the number of assumptions, doing additional analysis, or using a better method, don't require you to criticize the previous work.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/08 | 503 | 2,198 | <issue_start>username_0: Places like the old Bell Labs and Genentech gRED have an environment where the scientists publish quite a lot. Suppose I wanted to build my research R&D departments to have strong academic ties. What would I need to have in place to keep in touch with academia?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally speaking, any critiques should be brief and directed (i.e., "the cited works failed to consider in their analysis", "to simplify their model, they assumed , whereas in reality ").
If you're criticizing **assumptions**, be sure to specifically state which assumptions you challenge, and clearly deliniate (with references) why they are incorrect. Note that many papers use incorrect assumptions to begin work in a new field, and your critique should recognize that (i.e., "The seminal paper assumed [1]. We extend this work by removing said assumption.")
If you're criticizing **conclusions**, again state specifically which conclusion you disagree with, and be sure to provide data/analyses to back up your conclusion.
If you're challenging their **data**, note that (in neuroscience, at least) this is perfectly common; findings differ all the time. Progress often stems from finding the cause of these differences between data. You should note the difference and mention something along the lines of "Our findings differ from those of [1], and we believe this is because ". Note that it is almost a requirement to mention something like this; if you don't, (1) the researchers whose paper you missed will probably mildly insulted, and (2) people familiar with the field will assume you didn't do your basic literature search, which makes you look stupid.
Needless to say, ad hominem attacks are always inappropriate and should never appear in scientific literature.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that simply by thinking in terms of "criticism" you have already gone too far. I try and point out what the previous work has done and demonstrate how my work builds on that. Things like reducing the number of assumptions, doing additional analysis, or using a better method, don't require you to criticize the previous work.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/09 | 743 | 2,958 | <issue_start>username_0: Is there any tiers or levels for conferences? and if yes on which basis people and authors can decide that a particular conference is of Tier 1 and another one is Tier 2 ?<issue_comment>username_1: The Australian Research Council (ARC) publishes a comprehensive ranking of journals which classified each as A\*, A, B or C. This list can be found [here](http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/era_2012.htm).
The best way, however, is to talk to researchers or faculty members from the relevant field. I would be surprised if any researcher worth their salt didn't know what the main conferences are, each conference's preferences and biases, or what notional level of prestige is associated with each.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Some fields rank conferences by *geographic scope*. For example, you may have local, regional, national, and international conferences. Presumably, but not always, the prestige of the conference increases as it caters to a larger audience. If the conference has enough draw to convince individuals from other countries to pay the travel expenses, it will be more prestigious than a conferences attended only by people who live within 50 miles of the location.
You should also be able to distinguish conferences based on how well-known speakers are. Most conferences release their programs in advance. If your conference has multiple well-known researchers in your field giving several talks each, or maybe a keynote given by a Nobel Laureate, it is probably a serious conference.
I would not judge the prestige of a conference on the physical size, i.e the number of participants. The [Gordon](http://www.grc.org/) [Research Conferences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Research_Conferences) are very well thought of, but often quite small.
The last paragraph of [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2800/is-there-any-level-or-tiers-in-conferences-or-all-conferences-are-of-same-level/2801#2801) is good advice. Ask your colleagues in your discipline.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Depending on your discipline, you may be able to find an established ranking of conferences. Computer science-related disciplines heavily gear their publishing towards conference proceedings and, as such, there are resources, depending on the sub-discipline, that can give a hierarchical ranking of 'top conferences' (perhaps, depending on your discipline, a simple Google search could resolve).
As has already been mentioned, conference prestige is often associated with levels of geography, "international" being the highest level. This typically means anyone can submit and so, given the larger audience, there is usually correspondingly larger degree of prestige associated.
Also, it may worth noting that conference impact factor statistics has been an emerging trend as of late. This may also be used, where available, to assess conference prestige.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/08/09 | 792 | 3,226 | <issue_start>username_0: In some countries like Australia, Singapore etc, A candidate may be enrolled into Masters leading to PhD program on condition that he/she will pass the candidature test after the 1st year and are subsequently given PhD in the final/fourth year (subject to successful completion), which results in no M.Sc. degree in between.
Is there any discrepancy towards these PhD holder in academic or professional life?<issue_comment>username_1: **No.** Once you have a PhD, nobody cares about your previous degrees, or if you even graduated from high school.
(I know at least one [tenured professor who did not graduate from high school](http://erikdemaine.org/).)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This answers the title question.
It is not a bad idea to take a break between a BSc and a PhD, just to see what else is out there in the world. Maybe do a bit of travel or work for six months or year. The disadvantage thus of doing a PhD right after a BSc is that you spend too much time in school, getting deeper and deeper into one topic, without taking an opportunity to broaden your perspective.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To amplify username_1's answer, there are some instances where it will be inconvenient, in the sense that you will have to explain your situation.
Personally, I hold no master's degree. When I started my present job in Germany, this was looked upon as very unusual, and I had to explain that I attended a degree-granting university that did not require a master's for admission to PhD candidacy. (In Europe, the norm is that you essentially *have* to have a master's before beginning your PhD candidacy.)
Beyond that, however, there is generally no concerns beyond things that can be relatively easily explained. (The only thing I can think of is that if qualifications for a position are based on "years of experience," the truncated education may mean more post-educational work is required to satisfy the requirement.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I don't have an MS, but I do have a BS and a PhD in the same field. I have had no professional problems as a result.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Mainly, the answer is **no**, if you have a PhD no one will care whether you have a master's degree in the same area or not.
However, I *disagree with username_1* that no one will ever care about your previous degrees. This **statement is nearly true with regard to research**, but I think it **may be false for some other areas**. For example, if you want to teach at a liberal arts school (undergraduate-only, focused more on breadth than many schools), then you'll have a better chance to land such a job if you got your bachelor's degree at a school like that. At times I find it helpful to mention that I got a master's degree in *optimization and algorithms*, rather than just saying that I have a master's in math. I think this can more readily convey the particular skill set I acquired. If the people evaluating you always did so rationally and with due diligence, yours master's degree (or lack thereof) probably wouldn't matter. However, **humans are often lazy and/or emotional, so your mileage may vary**.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/10 | 782 | 3,334 | <issue_start>username_0: I attended a doctoral program and was completing it in 3 to 4 years. I got a life-threatening sickness that set me back several years. When nearing my dissertation I was dismissed. I was told that I was let go because I had cancer. I never wanted to return to that school again, but not having completed my work has caused me great heartache and I am not able to pursue the career I desired. Is it at all possible to complete the degree elsewhere?<issue_comment>username_1: In general, I think graduate schools want students to pursue their entire PhD candidacy at a given institution. Moreover, schools may be reluctant to count work done a long time ago as part of the requirements for obtaining a degree, as it likely sets a bad precedent.
Moreover, there's the question of financing. If you're in a program where students are financed through TA's, it's a lot easier to convince a school to take a chance, rather than in the sciences. The reason for this is that funding in the sciences is often tied to specific projects—which means that you will most likely need to change topics if you pursue a PhD in such a department. This would of course set your time to degree back considerably.
That said, you may find a sympathetic department that's willing to take a chance. My best advice is try to talk to the graduate admissions officers of some of the departments you're thinking of applying to. They'll help you to figure out what are the requirements and possibilities.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This situation surprises me: in the U.S., one could likely file (and win) a lawsuit alleging discrimination, in such a situation.
Dismissal from a college or university on grounds that one is ill is not legal, I think. Accommodation must be made, so that perhaps things are delayed, but not simply cancelled.
Outright dismissal from a job (such as research assistant or teaching assistant) on medical grounds I think is not allowed, either. One may be required to take a leave of absence if one absolutely cannot do one's job even with accommodation, but there is substantial legal (and moral) push to accommodate and reach a compromise.
I think discrimination on admissions, on medical grounds, would also be essentially illegal.
Edit: you should talk to a laywer conversant with such things, who might be willing to talk to you without a huge fee if you describe your situation to their screening personnel. The situation is rife with lawyerism, indeed. Be careful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you should try to fight it diplomatically but legally with the school. It doesn't seem fair or legal. It would be nearly impossible to continue in another institution unless you have relationships and also the reputation of the former school is considerably higher, which you wouldn't want to do anyway.
Depends if really the time you were away was strictly due to sickness. If you took several years more afterwards it is unlikely for you to win. Doctoral programs routinely turn away people who started, left, went to the real world, didn't like it, and want to return. They believe that somewhat freshness of knowledge and being current in the topics is important. Also they have some strange ideas about academic virginity that you want to take into account.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/10 | 912 | 3,972 | <issue_start>username_0: I have to request a faculty member outside of my department to be on my thesis committee and I was wondering how I should go about doing this. To be frank, I don't really see why someone would be willing to be on the thesis committee for someone outside their department and even field - apart from the altruism of wanting to help others in academia and all, but I assume professors are busy! Therefore, I imagine that it's hard to convince someone to do this?
In any case, I was wondering:
>
> what information about myself should I aim to include in an email request to a potential thesis committee member outside my department?
>
>
>
In addition, while I need to find someone to file my candidacy papers, but I have only a vague idea of what my final thesis will look like (I know the field, but not the particular question it will address.)
Some things I have come up with include:
* a rough description of the subject area
* 'expected' graduation date and number of years spent in graduate school so far
* if they have been on the thesis committee for someone else with a similar thesis (by looking at the thesis committees of former students who worked with my advisor)<issue_comment>username_1: From my experience, having cross-department committee members is very common, and can actually be very beneficial to the student, as you gain access to expertise and perspective you might otherwise miss. There's usually at least some connection between the research being done and the expertise of the faculty member. To use myself as an example, my research involved behavioral neuroscience, but I had both an electrical engineering faculty with signal processing experience and a psychology faculty on my committee, and they both gave *very* useful advice with my project. That being said, I had a committee member who was completely unrelated to my work (my focus shifted midway through my PhD career), and he requested to still stay on despite the lack of direct research connection; he was happy just to give advice and provide feedback.
You can find potential committee members by talking to other graduate students, and by looking at what theses professors have worked on (as you suggest above). I definitely recommend talking to other students; some professors are more difficult to work with than others, and you likely won't get that type of information from your advisor.
Regarding how to go about talking to the professor, I would just send a simple email asking for a meeting about this topic. If they're simply not interested, they'll say so, and you'll save yourself time. If they are, meet to discuss the following:
* who you work for
* what you're researching (both the ten-year research goal, if there is one, as well as your specific project)
* why you think this faculty member can help you
* why this person should be interested (this should be tacit; i.e., you shouldn't have to say it explicitly, he should understand it from the above items)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 mentioned, this is very common. Likely the same requirement exists in the other departments at your institution. Your request will not get rejected solely because you are from a different program. They may still decline if they feel that they know too little about your field.
If you want to maximize your chances of identifying a professor who will agree, then approach professors who have participated in the committees of other members of your group. Which professor(s) sat on the committees of recent graduates? Which professors have your fellow group members gone to? Perhaps your adviser has an unofficial reciprocal agreement with one or more faculty members in different departments. Mine did.
If there is already a connection between your group and a professor, then an email from you like the kind username_1 describes will not actually seem so random to that individual.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/10 | 509 | 1,696 | <issue_start>username_0: About to do this PhD thesis here - but am not really satisfied with my layout. Could somebody point me to some interesting layouts, templates or whatever?<issue_comment>username_1: Look at these options, I personally prefer the third option as Latex is always the best.
1. <http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/teaching/phd/>
2. <http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/c.clack/phd.html>
3. <http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~nlct/latex/thesis/thesis_a4.pdf>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The following are all LaTeX related.
I really like Uggedal's thesis design. You may download the sources from <https://github.com/jrk/uggedal-thesis>.
Other starting points are <NAME>'s `classicthesis` and <NAME>'s `classicthesis` packages.
```
@Manual{classicthesis,
author = {<NAME>}},
title = {The Classic Thesis Style},
keywords = {latex},
date = {2010-01-24},
}
@Manual{arsclassica,
author = {<NAME>},
title = {Customizing \texttt{classicthesis}
with the \texttt{arsclassica} Package},
keywords = {latex},
date = {2010},
}
```
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Use the one that is provided by your institution. The formatting guidelines are not "guidelines", but are instead "requirements" that are checked by someone who deeply cares about them. So you should use a template that has successfully been used in the past at your institution. If you do otherwise, you are setting yourself up for a **lot** of formatting work. All of that said, University of Oregon's style file, which I used for my degree there, may be found here: <http://www.ctan.org/pkg/uothesis>
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/08/11 | 696 | 2,671 | <issue_start>username_0: What if one pursues a PhD from a university campus which is not the main campus, rather in a different city hundred miles away. The certificate is given by the main campus authority. Is there any discrimination towards the graduates?
As an example, say the campus is [ADFA](http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/) which is a sub campus of [UNSW](http://www.unsw.edu.au/), Which is also known as UNSW Canberra ([details](http://info.unsw.adfa.edu.au/history.html)). more on this is [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force_Academy).<issue_comment>username_1: Often a university will have many campuses, and some campuses will be **much more prestigious** than others. (One well-known example is the University of California, Berkeley, versus UC Merced.) In that case your degree will generally be more highly regarded if you go to the more prestigious campus.
However, I think the example you mentioned does not fall into this case. (After reading the link you sent, I couldn't quite decide, but I got more information from the wikipedia page for [UNSW](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_South_Wales).) So in your case, I would ask about which resources, particularly classes and faculty members, you will have access to. [Elsewhere](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2709/college-vs-grad-school/2712#2712) I've written about why you should go to the best grad school you can get into. One big reason is **networking** and another is the culture and **mindset** you will absorb from your classmates and faculty. Even if you have the same degree on paper, many people will know (or think they do) if there's a difference in the quality of your training.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The quality of the department has much more influence on the degree than the "famousness" of the campus—whether it is a "main" campus or a "branch" campus.
For instance, in my field, Chemical Engineering, the University of California has two departments that are widely acknowledged to be top ten: Berkeley and Santa Barbara. A degree from either of these schools would be recognized as essentially equal; degrees from campuses like Davis or Los Angeles would be slightly less well received, but still be considered good.
So, to some extent, it's more the issue of the resources available at a given department, and its reputation within the community as a whole, that makes the difference. The campus as a whole is a distant second. (As a similar example, the University of Minnesota is recognized as a top-five program in my field; nobody would rank UMN as top five nationwide overall.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/08/12 | 1,009 | 4,422 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a economics major undergraduate student who will apply for grad schools in the coming semester. I think I have quite a strong research experience in mathematical statistics (asymptotic statistics to be specific), but, unfortunately, not much in economics itself. So I am curious if economics departments in graduate schools will care about my research experience in statistics?
Maybe a broader question is if grad schools care about applicants' research experience in a different (maybe even unrelated) field at all? I guess in my case statistics and economics are still quite correlated, but what about other more distant combinations of target departments and previous research experience?<issue_comment>username_1: While field-specific research experience is always the best kind, I think there is a role for good research experience in any *related* field. Close-by disciplines that share similar research methods and approaches will carry much more weight than something much further removed. (For instance, as a chemical engineer, I wouldn't put much stock in somebody doing sociology or clinical medical research, but somebody who had a background in research in applied mathematics or mechanical engineering would be potentially of interest.)
So, if you're going to go into an area of economics where your mathematical statistics background will be of benefit, I think that will (or at least *should*) be viewed favorably by an admissions committee.
That said, you will want to make sure that your research supervisor understands that you're applying to economics programs, and tailors her letter of recommendation accordingly. Also, if you have a lot of experience in a different field, you will need to make clear to the admissions committee why it is you want to pursue the new field.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A graduate program in any research field considers a variety of criteria for each applicant. The contents of a [good application to graduate school](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/958/priority-of-application-materials-for-admission-decision/961#961) have been [addressed here before](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1136/how-can-i-improve-my-research-experience-for-phd-application?rq=1).
Most admissions committees look at several criteria, which are often weighted, but none weighted so high as to dominate the whole decision. A strong showing in one category can offset a weaker showing in another. Among them are:
* Basic knowledge of the field: You demonstrate this by completing a Bachelor's Degree in the field or a related field, or presenting evidence that you will do so by the time you matriculate. For example, in your question you mention that you are majoring in economics and want to go to graduate school in economics. No conflicts there. If you were majoring in philosophy and wanted to pursue a Ph.D. in chemistry, you would be a harder sell. What constitutes a related field may vary, but I know that a B.S. in mathematics can get you into graduate programs in engineering.
* Academic ability: You demonstrate this through your grades in your courses, especially those relevant to the graduate program you want to enroll in, and through your scores on whatever standardized tests the program asks you to take before you apply.
* Research potential: You demonstrate this one of two ways. If you were lucky enough to publish your research as an undergraduate, then the committee can assess what you did directly. If not, then you need one or more letters of recommendation from someone who has supervised you in a research setting. The admissions committee wants evidence that you have certain qualities that make good researchers, regardless of discipline: curiosity, critical-thinking, creativity, strong work ethic, passion or drive, etc. A good research experience in another field is worth much more than a bad one in your own field.
* Communications skills: You demonstrate these through your personal statement (or essay or letter) that you must write. Spelling and grammar errors or worse writing problems in this document are more damning than a bad letter of recommendation!
* And as JeffE mentions in [his answer to a related question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/958/priority-of-application-materials-for-admission-decision/961#961): **No Red Flags**
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/12 | 775 | 3,134 | <issue_start>username_0: In the field of numerical modeling, Researchers often times find conference papers or journal articles which cites an internal report as the core of the paper. The main authors may have access to the internal report but what about the others? How does one cite an internal report in doing further research based on the main article?
As an example, [This paper](http://link.aip.org/link/doi/10.1063/1.1766756) and [this paper](http://tfaws.nasa.gov/TFAWS10/Proceedings/Interdisciplinary/Ted%20Wertheimer.pdf) cite both of the papers below -
1. <NAME> and <NAME>, “Transformation Induced Plasticity,” (LAUR-95-482, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1995)
2. Saeedvafa, M, “A Constitutive Model for Shape Memory Alloys”, Internal MSC Report, (January 2002).<issue_comment>username_1: When you cite *any* source, you should give enough that the reader can, at least in principle, read that source for themselves. This information is especially important when you cite something *as a source for further information*, as it is in your example paper.
>
> This paper presents the framework of such a complete phenomenological model **outlined by Sayeedvafa (2002)** that provides a description of a wide range of the observed behavior, which are both tractable from analytical as well as computational viewpoint.
>
>
>
For example, citations of technical reports (like your first example) should uniquely identify both the institution and the report, so that the reader knows who and how to ask for a copy. In particular, if the report is available on the web at a stable location, the citation should include a stable URL.
If a source is likely to be inaccessible to most readers (like your second example), you should also cite an accessible secondary source that describes the relevant content in detail. (If you really want to be helpful, the primary source citation should include a pointer like "Cited in [xxx].") Otherwise, you're just asking for the reader's *blind trust* that the source has the missing details you claim, or proves the result that you claim, or is as important as you claim, or even exists at all.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Citing a paper serves two roles. One is as a reference - a place for the reader to go and check the details. @username_1's excellent answer deals with this case. For the completeness of the answer, let me discuss the other case.
The other role of citation is *acknowledgment*, that is, acknowledging that somebody else did that piece of work, rather than the authors. That should be the only reason for you to cite a paper which is not publicly available (for instance, because it is not yet ready, etc.) Some time you can find a citation that says "Author A., Private Communication", which usally means you had a bunch of emails from Mr. Author, and the result/claim/lemma is actually based on what he told you or the draft of his paper that he sent only to you, etc., and you fully acknowledge him for that contribution.
Personally, I never liked citation to Private communication, but they do exists.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/12 | 2,145 | 9,149 | <issue_start>username_0: I am new to my field (cell biology / immunology) and I would like to ask about the best practice to annotate or summarize research articles and reviews for long-term retrieval. When I start reading into a new topic, I end up highlighting almost each paragraph of the paper/review. This doesn't make any sense, and it is actually making me slow and frustrated and it is holding me from reading more. Could you please share your thoughts.
**Update**: although two very important points of how to approach new papers and how to tag them have been addressed in the answers so far, my main concern was about the new acquired details which I can't remember a few months later. For example, I read a paper about JAK/STAT signaling two months ago, now I can't remember for example which JAK attaches to which cytokine receptor and interacts with which STAT. I need to skim through the paper again to find this piece of information. So, what I am looking for is an approach to accumulate the new knowledge and to facilitate reviewing them without the need to skim through the paper again and again. I know this will come with experience, but at the beginning there are too many new facts to keep track of.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no "best" way, everyone has their own way. I like to read the abstract and the discussion, and then the figures, and after that, the text. Its not something thats been tried and tested, you just develop your style over time reading hundreds of papers.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: As gkadam said, there is no absolute best way, and finding the way that suits you the best is also part of the learning process, and it can strongly depend on how your memory work. For some people, it's enough to just add some tags or keyword on the paper, allowing them to retrieve the information later, while other people needs to rewrite some parts in order to remember it.
For instance, the first time I read a paper, I do it without a pen, because I want to get a "feel" of the paper first, and if there is a point that I don't understand or that I think it's really important, I just leave it for later. I then read some of the references of the paper to see if I can't find a similar idea explained a bit differently (typically when there is an extended version of the paper I'm reading). After reading several papers, I start to have a good idea of the problem, and what part of which paper is the most important, and at this point I can read again, in detail, with a pen and some paper, to go through the tough parts of the paper.
The time you "lose" by reading the same paper several times, you gain it by focusing on the most important parts and by "skipping" the redundant ones.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Since I read papers electronically, and save the PDFs to my drive, I put the most useful part of the paper, along with the first author's name, journal abbreviation, and year in the file name. It means I have long crazy file names but I always know why I saved that paper even if it was years ago. For example:
>
> Chang\_ChemRev\_2009 - polymers for photovoltaics - PPV on p. 5874 and figure 3.pdf
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm using jabref as reference manager (I read the comment that you use Sente, which I don't know). Jabref allows me to assign a paper to different groups, and also to set up grouping in a hierarchical way.
In addition, I can put notes that are searchable (however, usually I don't do that but write them on the paper). I guess that's what I'd do with your JAK/STAT things. Sometimes I write the important stuff on a new sheet (if the margins of the paper are too small) and file that together with the paper.
I'm still going mainly with printed papers, as I can have a whole bunch of them besides each other and keep the overview which says what while writing.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I find it important to **be as active as possible** in your reading, especially for papers close to the questions you are working on. If you are only highlighting, then this is largely a passive activity, and does not help much with retention or even later rereading. If you are making notes, it is a little bit better, but still largely passive.
For important papers, I try to read the paper and then **write up a quick summary for myself** of the key ideas relevant to my interests: a sort of mini-review or personalized-abstract of the paper. For papers that don't contain important tools I use, but contain facts I have to cite I usually include a section that lists in what settings I would expect to cite this paper. This helps a lot at the writing stage. These little summaries of the paper are usually too rough and critical to be useful to others, so I keep them private.
I usually organize these summaries in a little personal wiki like [Tiddly Wiki](http://tiddlywiki.com/) where I can tag and do full text search as well as include links to the original PDF of my computer. Each article gets its own tiddle and is tagged according to topic. Other useful tools are available in:
[Is there any efficient non-linear note-taking software?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/109/66)
For some heavy papers (say important math papers) the reading has to be even more active. Usually including reproving the theorems and sometimes presenting these proofs to others in my group.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: I started a new strategy as follow: I am reading the article, taking notes, and then generating Q&A of the most relevant facts. I am using a flash card software with spaced repetition to help me review them. By doing so, I am no longer worried about forgetting things and more concentrated on understanding things. As I read more and more, I hope to reach the stage where only the recently published idea/concept are the ones which goes into my flash cards program. I know it's a tedious workflow, but I believe it will pay off soon.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: I tried to copy-paste the key ("most relevant") sentences from the paper in a form of list, by using just text editor (to make it searchable).
Drawbacks: 1. after 30-40 papers this text file started to be really big and difficult to search. 2. when I come back to this paper again the "important" parts are, in many cases, different from what was annotated from previous reading. 3. unable to sort the notes easily to categories. 4. in many cases even several sentences are not enough to express the finding.
Then I decided to excerpt the facts from the article pretty much the same way as they are prepared for Beilstein chemical database. I read an article briefly for the first time to roughly split it into logical pieces. Then I read it thoroughly sentence-by-sentence and make sort of reference card for every fact originally described in it (no information from references is included even though it may be relevant), although facts that go with "data not shown" count. In the reference card I have special fields to specify all available information on how particular fact was discovered including methods, experimental model etc. Every card contains reference to the original article, list of tags that can be key words or any other words that help to find it including their synonyms and abbreviations to facilitate search and grouping similar facts from different articles together. The card may also contain relevant references (if any). Tagging enables to assign the same fact to several different categories.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: My current approach consists of two parts.
First, I make use of a **Reference Management Software** (in my case [Papers](http://www.papersapp.com)), which allows me to highlight/annotate PDFs and to write notes for each PDF. It's easy to do a search which covers all the notes that I write, and even the internal text of the PDF. PDFs may be tagged or assigned to multiple categories/subfolders; they can also be exported with or without annotations.
Some examples of Reference Management Software (of which I have experience with 1-4):
1. [Papers](http://www.papersapp.com)
2. [Mendeley](https://www.mendeley.com)
3. [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org)
4. [Sente](http://www.thirdstreetsoftware.com/site/Sente.html)
5. [Endnote](http://endnote.com)
Second, I write a summary in a **review article** for each major topic that I am looking into seriously. I previously used Microsoft Word to do this, but have since switched to LaTeX/bibtex due to the convenience of being able to handle hundreds of references (or equations). The usefulness of a review article format is that it is easy to convert into a manuscript (keeping equations, references intact) when the time comes to write a journal paper. Furthermore, should I need to revisit a research area that I have not touched for many years, a review article allows me to quickly refresh my memory. Having all the relevant references in a single place also helps. A side benefit is that I sometimes send my review articles to collaborators to help them get up to speed.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/13 | 800 | 2,960 | <issue_start>username_0: Oftentimes, researchers talk about a paper that's been published "in Nature" (typically to establish its notoriety). However, I would like to clarify exactly what this means.
Along with *Nature*, the Nature Publishing Group publishes a wide range of journals, including journals with the word "Nature" in the title, such as *Nature Biotechnology*, *Nature Cell Biology*, and so on. Other journals published by Nature Publishing Group do not include the word "Nature" in the title, such as *Heredity*, *Molecular Systems Biology*, and so on. (See the [journal index](http://www.nature.com/siteindex/index.html).) With this in mind, it does not seem clear to me exactly what it means to have published "in Nature".
>
> **Question**: When someone says they've published "in Nature", does this literally mean they have published in the journal entitled *Nature*?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: The answer to your question is probably "Yes and No" or, more properly, it depends on who is telling you this and why.
If the individual wants you to find his or her research, then "in Nature" might mean in *Nature*. However, if someone wants you to find research, why aren't they giving you a full citation?
Usually someone would say their work is published "in Nature" to make themselves sound important (sometimes rightfully so). In this case, I doubt that the individual would make a distinction between *Nature* and the derivative journals, most of which also have high impact factors. The person is more likely to be vague if the field-specific NPG journal in which the work is published has a much lower impact factor than *Nature*.
In the field of chemistry, *Nature Chemistry* is relatively new, 4 years old. Since *NChem* is so new, most folks I talk to distinguish whether they mean *Nature* or *NChem*. *NChem*'s newness leaves it with a lower impact factor (20.524 for 2011, the first year it qualified for one) vs. *Nature* (36.280 in 2011).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I've never heard a neuroscientist say they published in Nature, if it was in Nature Neuroscience.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: This [Nature guide to authors](http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/1b_Accept_pub.pdf) uses the phrase "*Nature* and the Nature research journals." Also, the [editorial policies website](http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/index.html) states
>
> The Nature journals' editorial policies concerning publication of
> primary scientific research can be found on the pages listed below.
> The policies described are those of *Nature* and the journals with
> "Nature" in their titles.
>
>
>
This implies that when the Nature Publishing Group uses the word "Nature" in italics, they are referring to the journal *Nature* and not to their other journals. If they want to refer to any of their journals, they use the phrase "Nature journal" (without italics).
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/15 | 1,145 | 4,505 | <issue_start>username_0: I would like to start recording mathematics lectures for students to watch on their own time.
I need to find a device that allows me to write out the lecture with a stylus and import it to a computer.
I suppose I could buy an iPad or something close to it. But, that would be a bit of money. I am looking at a [Wacom Bamboo Splash](http://www.wacom.com/en/Products/Bamboo/BambooTablets/BambooSplash.aspx). The problem here is that the writing area seems very small (the class is a math class).
* What is a good device for writing out lectures to a computer?
* Is there a device that makes this work best and is not hundreds of dollars?<issue_comment>username_1: If your department has a [document camera](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_camera), especially a newer model, then you could use that. I currently use a document camera for my regular lectures. I write on the paper under the camera, the camera sends it to the computer and the computer sends it to a projector, where it gets projected onto the big screen in the lecture hall. This way I can look at my class the class the entire time and I do not have to worry about whether students in the back can read the writing on the whiteboard in front.
The document camera I use can also be set up to display the images it captures on the computer. Then, with video capture software, ([CamStudio](http://camstudio.org/) is an example of one with a free option), you could record a video as you write.
If your department does not have a document camera, you can set up something similar with a webcam, which would be cheaper to buy but produces lower video quality. Set it to look down on the paper. You write your lecture, and the computer records it. Alternatively, your institution may have an instructional technology office that could loan you a document camera (or may even have a more advanced set up).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: We went this path heavily some years ago with the Italian Math Olympiad organizing committee. (you can see some of our lectures, in Italian, on <http://olimpiadi.dm.unibo.it/videolezioni/>).
You will obtain the best results with a tablet pc with a Wacom active digitizer. The quality of the pen writing cannot be matched by iPads and the like. Unfortunately, that is a toy that does cost hundreds of dollars. You may get a used one off eBay for cheaper. I never used one, but I heard that the HP Touchsmart TM2 was one of the most appreciated models in the past years, and now it should be quite cheap to get one.
There is no cheaper option, as far as I know, that will provide the same overall quality. Graphic tablets such as the one you are considering are a reasonable substitute, but, apart from the size issue, they have a higher learning curve (since you have to learn to watch in point A and write in point B --- no problem after some training if you are the one teaching, but this will prevent you from asking the students to solve exercises in a class, for instance).
Forget about iPads and anything that does not have an active digitizer --- the writing quality will simply not be sufficient for your needs.
EDIT: clarification: I wrote "we" but I am just one member of the project and only a few of those lectures are mine.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: What about using some kind of screen recorder that also do editing?
I find [BB FlashBack Express](http://www.bbsoftware.co.uk/BBFlashBack_FreePlayer.aspx), [Wink](http://www.debugmode.com/wink/) and [this](http://www.screen-record.com/screen2exe.htm) to be good ones.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: **Yes**, by all means use a Wacom (any device). You need screen capturing s/w and audio capturing. You can then post the video afterwards (which will just be the computer screen, and your voice talking over it).
Windows:
--------
* Use OneNote for your notes + Camtasia for audio/video capturing. You might also use an external MP3 recorder for sound if your PC mic is not good and then blend them yourself after (more tedious).
Mac:
----
* I use a series of Pixelmator images for "writing" math on a Mac. Create a 4096x4096 image gives you a fairly large canvas. A new page can be added by adding a new "layer". To record what you're doing, if you combine [SoundFlower](http://cycling74.com/soundflower-landing-page/) + QuickTime you can have screen+audio recording (see youtube for [videos on how](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TaXe75qiSY))
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/15 | 1,184 | 4,864 | <issue_start>username_0: A non-academic group to which I belong holds military history conferences a few times a year. We've discussed seeking presentations from graduate students, but we're unsure of the process. So, I have a few questions that might be answerable here.
**Where would one publish** a "call for papers" on specific areas of military history? (Our conferences are on Operation Dragoon and the Battle of the Colmar Pocket in WWII.)
**What would be expected** to be provided for presenters who are accepted? We're a non-profit, funded only by fees for the conferences, so have never budgeted for honorariums, lodging for speakers or their expenses. Would that be so uncouth as to inhibit anyone from responding?
**Would sample presentation videos be excessive?** We've had some presenters in the past whose style has been so dry and non-interactive that the audience became disengaged. So, before we would accept a speaker, we'd want to see video or a live presentation to ensure that they will meet our needs. Is this excessive?
**How long a presentation** would be acceptable from the speaker's perspective? I expect we'd be interested in presentations of 15-20 minutes, as the topic would be rather specific (such as a presentation on the actions of a single military unit rather than on the campaign in general).
Basically, I want to know if our expectations don't meet academic expectations, so we can decide whether to modify our expectations or decide not to issue a call for papers.<issue_comment>username_1: Some of your expectations fall within the norms and some may not. There may be some variation by field.
Having never organized a conference, but having attended and presented as several, these seem to be the norms I have encountered:
>
> **Where would one publish a "call for papers" on specific areas of military history?**
>
>
>
Anywhere and everywhere. Send emails (or snailmail) to the history departments at nearby colleges and universities. Pass the word along to other organizations with similar interests. Are you close to a military academy? Is there a military museum nearby? Those are other good places to find speakers.Make sure that all correspondence includes the soft deadline (i.e. about a week before your real cutoff) for submission, and the process by which an individual signs up to speak. Also, you need to make clear the type of talk you are expecting based on the audience. Should this be a talk for experts, for enthusiasts, or for the general public? These announcements also serve as advertising for your event.
>
> **What would be expected to be provided for presenters who are accepted?**
>
>
>
Generally, at large conferences with hundreds of talks, the travel costs are paid by the speakers. For a small conference, you may want to offer to reimburse some costs on a first-come-first-served basis, however, very few folks should be put out by lack of financial support. I would save honoraria for their true purpose: providing an award for someone and/or attracting a really big name.
>
> **Would sample presentation videos be excessive?**
>
>
>
Yes. The situation you describe is a known danger, but it is not normal to ask for videos. Your better bet is to send people to attend other talks by your speakers and evaluate them unofficially, but you should still let them speak. If you secure a big name in the field, you will attract an audience, even if said person is a horrible speaker. If you are attracting academic speakers and you have a nearby university, asks folks in the relevant departments if they know of good speakers and try to target those individuals.
You might get away with suggesting that individuals who wish to be considered for the keynote spot send in a short clip of them presenting elsewhere, but that would still be pushing it.
>
> How long a presentation would be acceptable from the speaker's perspective?
>
>
>
Depending on the number of speakers you hope to attract and the length of the conference, block off 30 minute or 60 minute blocks. 15 minutes is a little short, and you should only exceed one hour for keynotes/plenaries. Most academics would interpret a 30 minute block of time as 20 minutes of presentation and 10 minutes of questions and answers, which sounds like what you want.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A couple additions to username_1's answer:
1. Understand that, unfortunately, lots of people will regard your invitation as spam and ignore it. You can't help this, try not to worry about this too much.
2. If you can't fund the speakers' travel, say so. In my field, it is customary to pay the travel expenses of invited speakers, but if you can't then it is fine to simply say "Unfortunately, we will not be able to provide funding for your travel expenses" in your message.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/16 | 1,304 | 5,001 | <issue_start>username_0: When creating online learning materials, I like the idea of sharing slideshows with audio commentary for each slide. I know it is possible to do this with PowerPoint (e.g., see this [MS Office tutorial](http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint-help/add-sound-and-video-to-a-powerpoint-presentation-HA001159312.aspx)).
However, I prefer to create PDF slides using tools like [beamer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamer_%28LaTeX%29).
### Questions
* Is it possible to create PDF presentations with embedded audio?
* What is a good workflow for implementing this (e.g., recording the audio files, storing the audio files, sharing, etc.?
Ideally, the solution would be cross-platform and minimise external viewer requirements.<issue_comment>username_1: You need [Adobe Acrobat Pro](http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatpro.html) to record audio and integrate it into your PDF files.
Anybody can access the PDF+audio via the free [Adobe Reader](http://get.adobe.com/reader/).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you don't want to pay for Adobe Acrobat Pro, as @username_1 mentions, LaTeX can do this with embedded hyperlinks. See [this page](https://web.archive.org/web/20170226134025/http://www.bio.lmu.de/~benda/software/latex/), Section 3.5 for more information. Note that if you use this method (as far as I know) you will have to click for sound, it cannot be automatic.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If you don't mind hosting your files online, [SlideShare](http://www.slideshare.net) is a good solution. You can create an online audio presentation by combining your slides with an audio recording of yourself (MP3 format, for example) and a list of timings at which slides go forward.
I have used it myself, and it is a decent tool for this purpose.
---
Another solution, which is technically far from optimal but just works, is to convert your slides + audio file into a movie. This can be done with any AV recording/capture software. Then, you encode the movie into a Web-suitable format before putting it online.
Depending on your OS of choice, there are tools to do that. My wife does it on the iPad, for example, with [ExplainEverything](http://www.explaineverything.com) and the workflow is quite neat.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You can make slides with LaTeX/Beamer and embed audio (and video) with the media9 package --- \usepackage[...]{media9}. The presentation becomes system-dependent, however. Embedded sound in my slides plays in Acrobat Reader but not (on a Mac) in Preview.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: another way to approach this is the LaTeX route with beamer for generating the slides and use a screencast software (eg Camtasia - but there are also free versions around) to record your voice ... this works really well for me
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: You can do this easily using **Jupyter Notebooks**. It works great if you have embedded code (in Python, R or Julia), but the code element isn't necessary - it makes very pretty slides using markdown.
See [this StackOverflow answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/30741861/5534457) for guidance. You can add the autoplay=True argument, and the audio file can also be [audio from a url](https://ipython.org/ipython-doc/dev/api/generated/IPython.display.html#IPython.display.Audio).
If you've never worked with code in Python, R, or similar, then the learning curve on implementing this will be steeper. But wouldn't this be a great time to learn the hot open-source languages anyway?
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: Depends what you need. The other comments provide enough sources for typed out equations. However, in the event that you are doing this live/informally, I find it sometimes better to use handwritten equations, it which case I use [Notability](https://www.gingerlabs.com/).
This may be an extremely niche use case, but it comes up often enough that you may want to consider it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: Note: This is not an answer to the question!
As the answers have explained,
you can embed audio into a PDF file,
**but why would you want to do that?**
Personally, I make my slides using Google Slides,
and make a video recording, which I post on my YouTube channel.
The result is, in my opinion, **superior** to a PDF file with audio,
because I can use a pointer (a red dot that moves as you move your mouse)
to highlight the portion of the slide which I want students to focus on.
In addition, although I haven't tried it myself,
I believe that it is possible to draw on your slides by hand,
e.g., using an iPad, as you are delivering your presentation.
By using a pointer and/or handdrawn annotations on your slides,
you can communicate your ideas far more effectively and dynamically
than if you use PDF slides alone, which tend to be static.
(Yes, I know that you can program animations into your slides,
but the effort-to-reward ratio does not seem worth it to me,
in almost all cases.)
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/16 | 627 | 2,443 | <issue_start>username_0: This follows on from a recent question about [embedding audio in PDF slides](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2862/how-to-create-pdf-of-slides-with-audio). I don't like the thought of users needing to use a particular PDF viewer in order to hear the audio and I don't like the thought of needing proprietary software just to create the presentations. Thus, another option would be to create HTML slides. There are a range of HTML slide production approaches (e.g., [S5](http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/), [DZSlides](http://paulrouget.com/dzslides/), [Slidy](http://www.w3.org/Talks/Tools/Slidy/), [Slideous](http://goessner.net/articles/slideous/)).
**Update**:
I was thinking about using [pandoc to convert markdown into one of the slide formats](http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/README.html#producing-slide-shows-with-pandoc). @Federico mentions the audio HTML tag. I assume that would be part of an overall solution. This presumably represents a basic answer, but I'd be keen to get some guidance about how this works on a practical level:
* **Are there any examples of implementing audio in HTML slides?**
* **Are there any strategies for increasing the usability of consuming and activating the audio?**
* **Are there any browser or operating system compatibility issues?**
Thus, in a broad sense my question is
**How can HTML slides be created in an effective and efficient way with embedded audio?**<issue_comment>username_1: If I read correctly, in all those HTML slide systems you write the HTML file directly, it is not produced by some external tool. So I think you can simply put an [audio tag](http://www.w3schools.com/html5/tag_audio.asp) in it. Or am I missing something?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A different option would be creating a [screencast](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screencast). A screencasting program would record your slides as they play as well as recording voice (or other sounds) from the microphone. [Jing](http://www.techsmith.com/jing.html) is a free, though limited, screencast program. [CamStudio](http://camstudio.org/) is another free program. There programs you can purchase that include advanced features, including editing and post-production.
The benefit of this method is that your lecture is now a video file, which rarely requires any type of special software, and you can share them easily on youtube, vimeo, or social media.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/16 | 406 | 1,849 | <issue_start>username_0: How successful would someone be who completed his PhD in something such as computational biology or neuroscience but wanted to pursue post-doctoral training and beyond in computer science?
I say computer science because, presumably, dissertation work in computational X involves programming and a working knowledge of data structures and algorithms.<issue_comment>username_1: I believe that career changes and "reinventions" are a regular part of modern careers in highly specialized fields. Very few people will be able to work in a single domain for their entire careers, and the ability to move laterally between "adjacent" fields will be a critical skill enabling one to have greater chances and opportunities for success.
Now, that said, your chances of success in any *particular* job hunt will depend to some extent on how "enlightened" your future boss (or hiring staff) are: some will actively seek out anyone with the appropriate skill set and enthusiasm for the work, while others will be more focused on people who have the "direct" skills they need, assuming such people will require less training to be able to carry out their work. Neither of these positions is "better"; they just happen to coexist.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The most important of all criteria is the interest you have and confidence you feel in the new or adjacent field. In addition to this you need to convince your future post-doc supervisor that you are capable of pursuing post-doc in computer science. This would need from you a specific and honest cover letter and curriculum vitae that highlights your new intentions.
Also, *computer science* is a broad area and I am not sure if someone offers post-doc in just *computer science*. This supported by @JeffE (see his comments down) also.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/17 | 3,627 | 15,207 | <issue_start>username_0: It is customary to use one's academic e-mail address as contact address in publications; I have seen once or twice an `@gmail.com` address being used instead, but it simply looked unprofessional.
However, I already experienced personally twice that system administrators love to deactivate e-mail addresses when people leave the institution. In a time when serving 1 GB of data costs one cent, apparently it is too demanding to set up forwarding for a few old users.
This leads to "e-mail rot" in many published papers, also for addresses that are explicitly designated as contact addresses. If one happens to have a popular name, it might become difficult to identify them using a search engine after the e-mail address becomes invalid.
What is your proposed solution to this problem? Should we (well, the ones of us that have tenure and power) put pressure on system administrator to change this practice? Should we use in our publications a different, more stable e-mail address than the academic one? Should we maybe get rid of the e-mail and contact address in papers overall? Should we insist that the journal publishers set up an alternative contact system (good luck with that)?
Related question: [Changing mailing and e-mail addresses as corresponding author--which to include?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/164/changing-mailing-and-e-mail-addresses-as-corresponding-author-which-to-include)<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I think that (in academia) sticking to official e-mail addresses is an atavism.
Currently, one's personal e-mail (say, `[email protected]`) is better because:
* usually more efficient/stable/etc,
* lasts for longer than 1-4 years.
While names like `mad_theoretican_666@...` may sound ridiculous for professional communications (but it's rather a matter of taste than anything else), I don't see anything wrong with e-mails like `name.surname@` or `n.surname@`.
However, I heard quite a few times that non-institutional e-mails sounds less serious.
But honestly, if someone builds his/her value depending on how his/her e-mail sounds (and doing it against very practical reasons), it is the thing that is ridiculous.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: **Should we use a stable email address?**
I agree that seeing @gmail.com, @hotmail.com, @yahoo.com in email addresses for academic papers is somewhat jarring. That it should be the case probably says more about our assumptions about the author than it should (why doesn't he/she have a *proper* email address?). The benefits of having a stable email account - for those of us still moving frequently from post to post - is undeniable, but we choose not to use it for these reasons. Will that attitude change? Not impossible, but don't count on it.
**Should we put pressure on sysadmins to maintain forwards on our old emails?**
I'm not a sysadmin but I doubt whether any sysadmin would look favourably on maintaining indefinitely forwards in this way. After two or three hops, your email chain starts getting long and vulnerable.
**Should we get rid of addresses altogether?**
Probably not. We need some way of being contactable.
**Should we insist that the journal publishers set up an alternative contact system**
I like this idea but appreciate that getting the publishers to do this would be difficult.
What if there was a third party site which stored up-to-date contact data and was linked to by the journals? A freely accessible, central repository of author contact data. The authors would be responsible for maintaining their contact information.
Users of the repository would themselves have to log in to prevent massive downloading of users' data by spammers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The American Mathematical Society had a [email forwarding](http://www.ams.org/membership/individual/benefits/mail_forward) service for its members, which gives them a stable @member.ams.org address that they can update as they move. However, this email forwarding service is no longer available. Still, something like this could be a good solution.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Should we (well, the ones of us that have tenure and power) put pressure on system administrator to change this practice?
>
>
>
Implementing a direct forward (i.e., your mailbox no longer exists, so no disk space problem) is not really hard, and I have currently two previous email addresses forwarded. The volume of emails decreases
>
> Should we use in our publications a different, more stable e-mail address than the academic one?
>
>
>
What makes you think that a gmail address is more stable than an academic one? What if gmail decides to switch to a different business model where you would have to pay for that address, would you necessarily keep it? Would you say that your yahoo email is stable? Maybe it was 3 years ago, but now, I wouldn't be so sure. Academic institutions tend to last longer.
In addition, as you said, personal addresses look unprofessional, because they cannot be trusted. It won't cause your paper to be rejected, but that's not going to be a plus side. And it won't change the fact that readers of your papers can contact you or not.
>
> Should we maybe get rid of the e-mail and contact address in papers overall? Should we insist that the journal publishers set up an alternative contact system (good luck with that)?
>
>
>
As other people mentioned, the important point for contact is actually that people can find you. An email is a unique ID, you can put it on your current page so as to be indexed by search engines.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I make a point of offering all of my papers for download from my website. So if readers discover me via a paper I've written, it should be easy for them to find my website (just google my name and the title of the paper). On my website I list my current email address.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Since [Piotr's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2873/442) and the discussion following it states the most important points (while an academic email address may become invalid, a private one provides no means to verify the author's actual affiliation, or even suggest the author doesn't *identify* with it), here's my suggestion:
1. Create a PGP key+ for your private email address
* optionally add your academic email address as another identity
2. Have your key signed, e.g. by
* colleagues
* your institution's sysadmin
* a key exclusively for your academic email adress
3. Publish the key, e.g. at <http://pgp.mit.edu/>
4. Ask the publisher to include your *public* key+ or at least the footprint in the publication
* The online version should even link to the key entry to make verification easier
Now everyone can easily check your affiliation while you've made sure you can be contacted in the future - you can even add alternative email addresses to you key later on (the upload can be updated), and everyone will be able to deduce that should your original address not be reachable any more, you might be reachable via one of the other addresses associated with your public key.
As an additional benefit, now both you and your co-authors can sign the publication itself, adding another level of trust that this is truly authored (or sometimes rather endorsed, if you're so honest ;) by each of you. *And* since you now have PGP keys anyway, you can also sign and/or encrypt your emails, making electronic communication both more trustworthy *and* less prone to leaks. Also, it keeps the NSA out for a while.
---
+ In case you're not familiar with PGP:
You create a pair of keys consisting of a *secret* key (which you and *only* you shall ever possess) and a *public* key (which you are supposed to make as public as possible/required). The secret key can be used to put a signature on anything digital, like messages, files, protocols, papers or other people's public key, and anyone can use the matching public key to verify that this signature stems from that secret key, and thus (hopefully) from you. Reversely, anyone can encrypt data for you with your public key that only you can decrypt again with your secret key (messages can be encrypted for multiple recipients as well if required). Since everyone can sign anyone's key, you obtain the [Web of trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust), a network of keys that allows you to estimate how reliable the association of a key to an actual person is without having to exchange public keys in person. (The downside is, your email address is public and social engineering is possible, but we're responsible adults, right?)
A great open source implementation of the [Open PGP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP) standard is the [GNU Privacy Guard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: In the age of search engines and relatively high mobility on the side of researchers, personally I see no reason to include an e-mail address on research papers. Whenever possible (i.e., the published/editor does not explicitly ask for it), I do not include it at all and if I must, I use the currently valid one. The reason is exactly that it becomes invalid quite quickly. The e-mail address is not useful even as a means for author identity disambiguation. For lucky guys bearing a name like "<NAME>" in various languages (I am such a case as well), it's relatively common to encounter a guy with the same name, or initials working at the same university, or sharing part of academic history.
A complementary issue to the original question posed is this:
**How many times in the last ten years did you used an e-mail address stated in the paper as a means to contact the author(s) of the paper?**
I did so exactly zero times and know of nobody who did so more than that (and yes, I asked several colleagues about this in the course of the last few years).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: While I like [Tobias' approach](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2886/725) I agree that it is overkill. However, I wonder whether it would just be a rather simple solution to give two email adresses of the corresponding author: the institutional and the stable personal one.
On the other hand, while I do sometimes contact authors using the contact email address, I consider this a convenience rather than a necessity.
* It is usually quite easy to track down the author even if he moved on. People at the old institute usually know where he went.
* If the author has been moving on so often that the old institute doesn't know any longer where to find him,
+ usually that means that he (or the institute) moved to a different field,
+ and this happens mostly for papers that were published quite a while ago (but if he has continued working in that field, you usually find newer work with newer contact address)
+ consequently, there's a high probability that he anyways doesn't remember the details I want to ask...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: When I see a gmail address on a paper I think "this is an IT-savvy author who realises their current institutional email address will probably be gone in a few years and wants people to be able to contact them after that." It doesn't look at all unprofessional to me.
But if you're concerned about the appearance of such an address, one solution would be to register your own domain name and have an email address like `<EMAIL>`, which forwards to (for example) a gmail account. You can also put your own academic web site at this domain, meaning you can take that with you when you change institutions as well.
(Edit from years later: if you do this, make sure that you will be able to keep the domain name registered decades hence. I didn't receive emails from the registration company I used - ironically, because my email address changed - and consequently the domain now points to a spam site, and I can't get it back. So I'm kind of glad I stuck with gmail for my publications.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_10: Eventually, if [ORCID](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORCID) (discussed also [in this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2982/958)) takes momentum (and it seems it will, since it is backed by the most important publishers), it could solve this problem: the paper contains the ORCID number of the author, and points to an online profile which the researcher themselves can update.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: We should just use the email of our current academic institution, and academic institutions should provide user-controlled forwarding of some type (so people don't need to ask a sys admin if their forwarding address changes). Simple, effective.
>
> Should we (well, the ones of us that have tenure and power) put pressure on system administrator to change this practice?"
>
>
>
Yes. Unqualifiedly. In my opinion, any institution that fails to do that does a massive disservice to its students and non-tenured researchers (i.e., anyone who might leave during their career). Email forwarding is not hard, nor is it costly. If someone tells me their institution doesn't forward, I would suspect they have a mediocre administrative infrastructure for research. Research institutions are built on the successes of their professors and professor's successes are built (in part) on the success of their students and research staff. If you could improve your school's standing in the research community by one peg by adding email forwarding, wouldn't it look pretty stupid not to do it?
Disconnecting those researchers' emails entirely is a small but non-trivial obstacle that could impact their research careers, which trickles back to the institution (particularly with PhD recipients). They might miss out on invitations to collaborate, book chapters, and even a heads-up on job opportunities. To those who say "Well, I always Google anyway," you probably aren't emailing a couple dozen people to contribute to a book (or, for an encyclopedia, think 100+ contributors). If you did and a couple emails bounced, how much time will you spend trying to hunt down the new emails?
I've been affiliated with an institution that did provide email forwarding, by a mechanism that I thought was pretty flexible. At the end of your time there, they closed down your email account after a couple months (the storage, that is). You could request that your emails be forwarded to an alumni address. This alumni address was controlled by you, in terms of where it forwarded.
So then, you would do the following:
1. Create an alumni address
2. Set up your original email at the institution to forward to the alumni account
3. Set up the alumni address to forward to a stable account (e.g., Gmail)
4. Emails to either your original or alumni emails would forward to the permanent email
So long as your permanent email doesn't change, you only need to do this process once per institution. Even if you did change your permanent email, it would take only a small amount of time to re-route your forwarding (one re-route per past institution).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/17 | 398 | 1,771 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it safe to post my CV online (with my physical address included)? Should I be worried about identity theft in doing so?<issue_comment>username_1: Considering that public telephone directories with names, addresses, and phone numbers have been around for decades, I don't think there's a significant risk of identity theft here. You could consider using a distinct email for your resume such that if you begin getting too much spam you could manage it separately, but even that's probably not necessary.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Supporting @username_1, it is not a big issue since data pertaining to many of the social network accounts are not completely private and many do have access to them for various reasons. One option is to put your university/office address on your CV since your name would in general be there on the university website. Also, as a side point at least do not put your photograph on the CV.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I know many professors and graduate students who post full information in their website copy of the CV, including home address & home/cell telephone numbers.
I don't think posting this kind of information is necessary at all for the online CV. I guess most readers/browsers of your *online* resume are interested in learning about your background, education, honors, grants, projects, experience, positions, and publications, rather than calling you on the phone, or paying you a home visit. Including your email adress is enough I guess.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: To complement the other answers, very often nowadays home address and home phone can be suppressed, and, indeed, are not "public" information in the U.S. Workplace contact info suffices.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/19 | 3,322 | 13,653 | <issue_start>username_0: I am planning to write several papers exploring various aspects of the same scientific question. Each of these papers must have an introduction which motivates it and explains the relationship between the problem and what others have studied in the past.
It would be fantastic if I could simply copy-and-paste the same introduction, or, at least, 90% of it. This seems to me to be ethically unproblematic. After all, I need to say the exact same things every time, and I certainly don't mind the self-plagiarism. Am I hurting the reader in any way? I suppose I might be, if the reader desired an introduction which consists of original material, but that is an odd desire, isn't it? Its the research, the stuff that follows the intro, that is original.
Sadly, I have gotten wind that the majority of the research community apparently does not agree with the sentiments expressed in the previous paragraph. This leads me here to ask a series of related questions:
1. To what extent is self-plagiarism in non-technical bits considered acceptable? I often see authors recycle paragraphs but I have never seen anyone cut-and-paste the entire section outright.
I'd be particularly interested in learning whether norms on this vary across different scientific communities.
2. How often do scholars find themselves trying to same the same thing in different words to avoid self-plagiarism?
3. Supposing I insert a sentence to the effect of: "The introductory section 1.2 is taken verbatim from the author's earlier paper [1]." How likely are journal editors and reviewers to complain about this?
By the way, I am fairly certain they would be **very** likely to complain about a sentence to the effect of "We refer the reader to [1] for motivation to study this problem and a discussion of its relation to prior work."<issue_comment>username_1: As a referee, I would not have problems with either way of referencing your previous paper. I would be more pissed off if I checked one of your earlier papers and found that a section was ripped off that without notice.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Firstly, quoting any work, **including your own**, without explicit attribution of the quote, is going to earn you a very bad reputation for plagiarism sooner or later. Just say no.
Secondly, and to state the obvious, the introduction is there to introduce the rest of the paper. As each paper will be unique, so should the introduction be: the point is to lead the user into the paper, rather than to give a grounding in the whole subject area.
Thirdly, why not wrap up all of the things you want to say in all of the papers' introductions, into a single review paper? It would contain all of the literature review, motivations, unsolved problems, areas for future research, that you want to reference in your other papers. And then, those other papers can just briefly & concisely properly reference and quote the relevant bits of that review paper in their introduction. It won't be as brief as *"for review and motivation, see my paper DOI:ABC.DEF.GHI"*, but you should be able to distil the review paper down to a paragraph or two for each subsequent paper, and those words will be unique for each subsequent paper, drawing only on the elements you need for that paper.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> To what extent is self-plagiarism in non-technical bits considered acceptable? I often see authors recycle paragraphs but I have never seen anyone cut-and-paste the entire section outright.
>
>
>
There is no strict rule about that, apart from the fact that "the overlap between two papers must not be substantial". I think it's mostly a matter of content than size. For instance, if you were in your paper to reuse a technique/theory/tool that has been previously defined, by you or someone else. Then having a short section reintroducing the tool (for the sake of the self-containment of the paper) that is a copy/paste from another paper is OK. You found a nice and concise way to present a technique/theory/tool, there is no real need to reinvent it.
However, the introduction is quite different, because that's the part that motivates your paper, and present the results detailed in the paper. There is of course some high-level paragraphs/sentences that you can reuse (The need of general-appraoch is paramount in the context of general-problem because of general-reason), but somehow, if 90% of your introduction is the same than for another paper, then that probably means that either the 10% is not enough as a contribution alone (which doesn't seem to be the case) or that your introduction does not focus enough on why those 10% are important. If the major part of your 90% is background and related work, then move them to explicit sections.
>
> I'd be particularly interested in learning whether norms on this vary across different scientific communities.
>
>
>
I couldn't speak for other communities, but something that is usually frowned upon (but many people still do it) in CS is "incremental research", where your next paper is just a small improvement of a previous paper of yours, and where your strategy from the beginning is to maximize the number of publications you can get from one idea, instead of trying to publish directly the full idea. In this context, self-plagiarism, especially in the introduction, could be seen as a blatant proof of incremental research.
>
> How often do scholars find themselves trying to same the same thing in different words to avoid self-plagiarism?
>
>
>
Personally not that often, as I will mostly reuse "technical" parts, and try to write from scratch non-technical ones for each paper.
>
> Supposing I insert a sentence to the effect of: "The introductory section 1.2 is taken verbatim from the author's earlier paper [1]." How likely are journal editors and reviewers to complain about this?
>
>
>
For the above reasons, I would complain about it: if your introduction is taken verbatim from another paper, then maybe the contribution of the paper I'm reviewing is not that novel. For background/related work section, I wouldn't bother mentioning that it's a copy/paste from another paper, however, I would certainly like to be directed to "full" version of the sections. Also, and that might be something field-specific, some submissions are double-blind, i.e., the reviewers are not supposed to know the identify of the authors, and obvious self-references are forbidden.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Typically, you will not write all of these papers simultaneously in parallel, but one after another. And each time you write a new paper related to the topic, you will have a learned a lot more, and you will have a much better idea of how to explain the setting, what are the right definitions, etc.
Therefore you have a very good reason to re-write your introduction for each paper, and tailor it for the specific question studied in this particular paper. And this way there is no risk of anyone accusing you of self-plagiarism.
Incidentally, this way you can even go as far as *experiment* with different ways of explaining the basic setting of your work, and see if you get different feedback... After all, your introduction is the most important part of your work from the marketing perspective, and it is not easy to get it right.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: There is a very dangerous (for your career) issue here. If your papers are so similar that the same introduction could be repeated almost verbatim in each, it may be that the content of the individual papers don't represent a truly significant advance. As an obvious example, if you are just changing one parameter in your code and running it again, with no new analysis or insight, you will run into trouble and may even get banned from submitting to offended journals.
I realize this is not a direct answer to the question, but I think it may be useful to people interested in this question.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: You should definitely cite everything you copy verbatim, no matter what. (I.e., you should say something like "the following background information is repeated nearly verbatim from Section 2 of BLAH", so the situation is unambiguous. It's not enough to cite the source without making the copying clear.)
To see why, note that there are four possible types of people:
1. People who think it is OK to copy your own text without citation, and think it is OK with citation.
2. People who think it is not OK without citation, but is OK with citation.
3. People who think it is not OK in either case.
4. People who think it is OK without citation and in fact you must not cite it.
I don't believe people of type 4 exist. This means you should always cite any text you copy (even if you wrote it in the first place). There's no way you can lose: people of type 2 require the citation, people of type 1 don't mind, and people of type 3 are a moot point since they don't want you to copy it in the first place.
In practice, I think a large majority of academics are type 2, but it really doesn't matter.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Recently, we submitted a paper to an IEEE Journal, the student in charge, apparently copied large parts of the text from a previous article we had in an IEEE conference.
We got a response letter from the editor that said something like this:
>
> Every IEEE paper is checked for instances of plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), and we found that you made extensive use of copy-paste from your previous article BLA to write the current article BLA.
> I'm afraid I can't accept the paper with so much previously Published text.
>
>
>
Just a word of caution for these practices in IEEE Journals and Conferences
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Imo self plagiarism is an absurd concept. Because the very name implies that you have stolen your own ideas. Which is impossible.
A lot of if not all of what gets labelled as self plagiarism should really be called academic dishonesty.
There is also a huge cultural divide here. In some countries/cultures reusing your own work is not only acceptable but is in fact encouraged. After all if I have already written an image manipulation library that utilises the gpu writing it again from scratch is absurd but updating it to support new gpu features, fixing bugs and releasing it under the gplv3 licese is of course very desirable.
If everything is properly cited (what constitutes a proper citation is again a cultural issue) I really don't see any issue with using this code for several courses if it is applicable to them.
Also if an academic institution allows students to take courses similar enough that copy&pasting things between them is viable such an institution is at least partially at fault too.
And then there is the whole semantic issue since self plagiarism is in many languages similar to theft from oneself or to self victimisation (how exactly am I a victim if I take some lsd (well eth-lad since it's better but whatever) and have a nice 10 hour long trip with some nice sensory and mental effects).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: [iThenticate](http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/65061/What-Is-Self-Plagiarism-and-How-to-Avoid-It#.WHw2JtIrJdJ) has a white paper called [The Ethics of Self Plagiarism](http://www.ithenticate.com/hs-fs/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf). Within it are reasons not so self-plagiarise, namely copyright issues and the fact that some definitions of plagiarism include copying one's own work (which is contrary to other definitions).
They also go on to give guidelines on how to avoid self-plagiarism, which are helpful:
>
> • Guideline 10: Authors who submit a manuscript for publication containing data, reviews, conclusions,
> etc., that have already been disseminated in some significant manner (e.g., published as an article in
> another journal, presented at a conference, posted on the internet) must clearly indicate to the editors
> and readers the nature of the previous dissemination.
>
>
> • Guideline 11: Authors of complex studies should heed the advice previously put forth by Angell &
> Relman (1989). If the results of a single complex study are best presented as a ‘cohesive’ single whole,
> they should not be partitioned into individual papers. Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to whether
> a paper submitted for publication represents fragmented data, authors should enclose other papers
> (published or unpublished) that might be part of the paper under consideration (Kassirer & Angell, 1995).
> Similarly, old data that has been merely augmented with additional data points and that is subsequently
> presented as a new study is an equally serious ethical breach.
>
>
> • Guideline 12: Because some instances of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and even some writing practices
> that might otherwise be acceptable (e.g., extensive paraphrasing or quoting of key elements of a book)
> can constitute copyright infringement, authors are strongly encouraged to become familiar with basic
> elements of copyright law.
>
>
> • Guideline 13: While there are some situations where text recycling is an acceptable practice, it may not
> be so in other situations. Authors are urged to adhere to the spirit of ethical writing and avoid reusing
> their own previously published text, unless it is done in a manner consistent with standard scholarly
> conventions (e.g., by using of quotations and proper paraphrasing) (pg. 19-25).
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/19 | 1,148 | 4,787 | <issue_start>username_0: Disclaimer: The GRE Program [discontinued the Computer Science Test](https://www.ets.org/gre/subject/faq)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm from an unknown school in Georgia. I want to apply for grad school in U.S, but I don't have a good GPA although I am at the top %15 of the class. Here we have some strange grading system - we use 4.0 system but grading is not similar to the western world. I am confident on my knowledge and I believe that I can do well on GRE CS Subject exam.
So do you care about or value GRE Subject test results ?
If so, what score do you expect from a candidate ?
Is it possible to get some funding at top 40-70 range schools?
Regarding research, I don't have possibility of doing any research and it is not a top priority here, so we aren't provided opportunities for research.<issue_comment>username_1: The GRE subject tests are useful measuring sticks in disciplines where it's available, as they test understanding in a single discipline in a way that is hopefully "neutral" across different schools.
That said, you'll need to have a very strong *overall* package in order to [overcome the weakness in your GPA](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/324/how-do-you-get-a-bad-transcript-past-ph-d-admissions). A strong showing on the GRE subject test will help, as will strong letters of recommendation from several of your instructors. These letters should clearly indicate structural reasons why you can't do research, and should find some way to indicate your aptitude for graduate studies. If it is possible, you should also get an official note on your transcript indicating your class rank.
I can't really comment on the funding situation in CS; perhaps one of our other site users can fill in that part of the picture.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In short, a good GRE score does compensate for your getting an undergraduate degree from "not among the best institutes". As for funding, a graduate student in US generally gets funded through either (1) some research project funding, or (2) the department. In the former case you become a Graduate Research Assistance (GRA) where you assist a professor or a researcher in his/her research. In the later case you help the department (through some professor/teacher) in work related to teaching e.g. grading homework and so on. This position is called Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA). Apart form these two ways of getting financial support there is fellowship but that is achieved generally by those with exceptional academic and research experience.
With your background and expertise, the only feasible option is to get a GTA. I would suggest doing your best to get good GRE score (general and specific -CS) and then do a good search on available GTA and write to the professors (top and medium level universities) how you can hep them teach classes. Your cover letter must clearly and honestly state your abilities and interests.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Pure anecdote.
I got a peak at the notes that were written on my file1 at one place I applied to after a ... uh ... less than stellar performance at my undergraduate institution.
Things on the lines of
>
> Great test scores. What was he doing in school?
>
>
>
That program offered to admit me without support. In fact, a lot of places offered to admit me without support.
Grad school is *very* hard if you have to work too. The program I eventually chose gave me support about a year in, and it is just as well because I wouldn't have been able to keep it up much longer.
---
1No cloak and dagger stuff here, the reviewers wrote summaries on a sheet affixed to the front of the file which was left were I could see it while the departmental admin stepped out to flag someone down.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Regarding research, I don't have possibility of doing any research and it is not a top priority here, so we aren't provided opportunities for research.
>
>
>
For purposes of graduate school admissions, any self-directed intellectual activity counts as research. Have you contributed to any open-source projects? Have you written any Android or iPhone apps? Did you solve all the double-starred problems in Hopcroft and Ullman? Did you write a confluently persistent graph data structure library? Did you participate in (or better yet, coach for) the International Olympiad in Informatics? What about Google Summer of Code? Do you contribute regularly to a StackExchange site? Have you rebuilt a pinball machine? **These are all real examples.**
Research opportunities are not something you're *provided*; they're something you *hunt down and kill*.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/08/19 | 1,059 | 4,634 | <issue_start>username_0: The impression I get in my field of research (theoretical chemistry) is that candidates for postdoc and more permanent research positions are judged partly upon their publication record. I suspect this is true of other fields, particularly the sciences.
I suffer from a long term chronic illness which means currently I cannot work full-time. I manage 75% of full-time hours working on my PhD currently, so while I am well enough to do research, I am not well enough to do as much as I'd like. I am concerned that, should my health not improve, this will prove problematic as I try to move from being a student to an employee. My academic output would likely be less than an able-bodied person in the same position. While it may be of the same quality, there would be less of it.
There is legislation in many places that prevents discrimination against disabled people, but I suspect this would not apply where candidates are being judged based on previous academic output. My worry is that because academic employment seems so performance/output-oriented, I will be left behind, even if my work is of good quality.
Thoughts and experiences regarding how disability is treated in academia, particularly with regards to selecting candidates for a new position, would be greatly appreciated. I would also welcome advice on how to mitigate the possible issues arising from this.
I was initially unsure whether to post this, as it would be possible for potential employers to identify me from this posting. However, I think this topic is important to discuss and there are potentially other PhD students in the same situation as me.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not a recruiter (we have some here, I hope they'll answer to you), but I've been applying to quite a fair number of positions in the past years, so I can tell you how I've *felt* I've been judged and evaluated.
For a project postdoc (i.e., a postdoc where your research plan is already predefined), you need to prove that you can address the research problem of the project. I've usually felt that the evaluation process could be quite fast, and in this case, you might be judged a bit in the absolute: if there is another candidate with a better application (which is of course not limited to your publication track), she might be selected. Furthermore, in this case, the problem could mostly be the fact that you can't work full-time: if I have a budget for a 1 or 2 years postdoc, I might not be able to use the 25% of the budget elsewhere, so I might have little incentive in hiring a 75% postdoc.
For a permanent academic position, there are a priori hiring for life, and you might be more judged on your long-term research agenda. I've been applying to some positions in the UK, and all the forms ask you to indicate if you have any disability and if you need some specific treatment (for instance, if you are in a wheelchair, you might not be able to access some parts of the building). I would think that having a part-time is not necessarily a problem, as they can probably reuse the 25% of the budget (but of course, that would completely depend on the university).
In general, I've had the feeling that you're judged before all on how you have used the resources you had, and how you have progressed, rather than a simple look at your publication list. An academic application is quite huge, you can have a cover letter, a research statement, a teaching statement, a description of your best publications, a full academic CV, and some recommendation letters.
So, in summary, from how I can see people think and act in academia, I don't think they would care about your illness, and you should be evaluated taking that factor into account. The main question might rather be whether they would be interested in a part-time position.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Self-identifying a disability at some stage during the interview process is usually in your best interest. Being upfront with a potential employer can make all the difference, especially because of the legal protections it affords you in most academic settings. It's also important because then expectations are properly set at the beginning of the process, rather than having to "adjust" later on.
Additionally, many application processes (at least in the EU) allow for self-identification of illnesses and handicaps that could "slow down" one's career. This allows one to "lengthen" the eligibility clocks for many programs. This helps to ameliorate the problems you mentioned of being judged against a cohort that has had more time to work.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/20 | 526 | 2,401 | <issue_start>username_0: Why can't I have a single ScholarOne login for every journal I submit or review for? Is there some way to copy over the address, keywords & password for all my accounts so I don't have to waste time making the same stuff up every time I get involved with another journal?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the primary issue is the fact that because different publishers are responsible for maintaining the different author and referee databases, it's impractical (or perhaps even impossible) to share them between different journals. If you had the ability to get somebody else's database, it would be a potentially tempting target. So I think that everything is locked to a specific journal, without the ability to transfer between them. You can probably use the same login information for all of the different journals, but you'll need to register for each one separately.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Thank you for your question. My name is username_2 and I work for <NAME>, the organization behind ScholarOne. Our platform is configured by our publishers as they service their authors and editors. Publishers seek to maximize the value they offer to their journals, their editors and their authors through specific configurations of the ScholarOne peer-review workflow. This doesn't address your concern, but I hope that it sheds some light on the reasoning behind the multiple login requirements for authors. In short, there is one ScholarOne platform but there are many site configurations.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I understand there is a reson for keeping it separate, but ScholarOne allows to connect to ORCID to get information from it (sadly only gets name and few other bits, not a real help).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: The ScholarOne platform is very capable of allowing a user to have a single login across all journals. Unfortunately, each journal (or in some cases publishers) has required their user accounts to not be shared with other journals or publishers. @username_1 answer pretty much sums up the reason (its not impossible however). At ScholarOne, we realize this is probably the most frustrating parts of the system, and are always looking for ways to help reduce the pain associated with this.
Disclaimer: I am an employee at ScholarOne, but my posts and opinions are my own!
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/20 | 467 | 2,018 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a little bit different from the case of reusing boilerplate text.
Say one has done a series of experiments (either real or "virtual") to produce a set of results. Because the results are inconclusive as to the cause of certain effects, an additional, much larger set of experiments were performed under a series of different conditions to complete the "factorial matrix" of possibilities (all possible states of factor X crossed with all possible states of factor Y).
However, because the original results are valid, and represent unique "cells" in the factorial matrix, is it necessary to rerun the experiments for a future publication, or is it just a matter of obtaining journal permission for the re-use of figures and tables associated with the presentation of the data? As an example, am I violating copyright if I add a new set of curves to a figure which contains the same data as before?
I ask in part because there was just today a [retraction](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp306088h) based on reuse of figures, and I'd rather not run afoul of guidelines.<issue_comment>username_1: From my experience, researchers are free to re-use a given dataset as many times as they want in numerous publications. I've been involved in single datasets (which, admittedly, took years to build) that generated *dozens* of papers, and that is by no means a unique scenario. My understanding is that researchers are to refrain from publishing an identical analysis on an identical dataset in different papers. If you're using a single dataset for multiple analyses, there's no need to re-generate the data.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the other answer that this is a normal occurrence.
To avoid any confusion, be clear and cite the previous publication as the source/original presentation of the data. It is *not citing* (even yourself), which is an ethical breach, as it makes it seem that have done more than you really have.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/21 | 1,114 | 4,624 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm currently in the process of applying for various scholarships to fund my PhD.
Many scholarships mention explicitly the approximate amount per year of the scholarship. This is usually the amount *excluding* tuitions, so the amount mentioned is intended to be a stipend to cover living expenses.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, nor could I find a definite answer of this online: will this stipend be taxed? E.g., should I subtract a certain percentage off the scholarship amount that's mentioned, to calculate my **real** monthly income? Does this depend on the country the scholarship is given in, or are there international agreements on this?
I'm in the initial stages of setting up my PhD programme, therefore I'm in contact with professors in New Zealand, Australia, the United States and Canada, so ideally, answers to my question apply to any of these countries. If it's relevant: I'm a dual citizen (European/American Citizen).<issue_comment>username_1: In Belgium, we have two kinds of ways of paying PhD students. One is a bursary, which is untaxed. The other is a salary, which is taxed. The amount the student gets in the hand is roughly the same, though there are factors such as amount of experience, whether there's a family and/or children, etc, that affect the value.
Whether a bursary or salary was offered depends upon where the funding comes from. In practice, the tasks of the students in each case are the same. No additional money is provided for tutoring, though it is expected that students help out with tutoring and other activities.
Tuition fees (less that 1000 euro per year) are not covered by the scholarship. Money for books is not provided, though in our department students can order books for the library and keep them on their desk for as long as they want to. Sufficient money for conference attendance is generally available, independent of the scholarship, as far as the student is concerned (which means, managed collectively by the supervisor).
Belgian PhD students earn a comparatively good amount of money, I think almost the highest among PhD students in Europe. (I can't find a reference for that at the moment.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Taxation does depend very much on the country, as well as the type of award you receive. The amounts similarly vary from nation to nation. To give two examples:
* In the US, scholarships and fellowship stipends are taxed as ordinary income. However, in some cases, for externally funded awards, you need to be careful, as the university might *not* withhold taxes. In that case, however, you would need to make estimated tax payments, as you are still responsible for paying the tax "on time!"
Don't forget that your tax burden may also include *state* and *local* income taxes, depending on where you live. Making matters even more complicated, cost of living fluctuates wildly: you're probably better off with a $25,000 award in the midwest than a $35,000 or $40,000 award in New York City.
* In other countries, the system can vary. In Germany, for instance, graduate fellowships are not taxed, while "standard" graduate positions, which are considered employees of the state, are taxed. At the same time, however, people receiving the taxed positions receive health benefits and pay into the social security system. Stipend recipients are responsible for their own health insurance, and do not accrue time in the social security system.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: When thinking about taxation you need to consider how tuition and fees are handled. Under some circumstances, you could be responsible for paying tax on the money used to pay your tuition.
You also need to think about minimum earnings. If your only income is your scholarship, the tax burden will be small. If you have additional income, then the additional tax burden from the scholarship could be very large.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I am in a similar situation. Based on my research on departments in Canada, Australia, and the US, as already been mentioned the stipend is always taxed. Sometimes though you are in a lower tax bracket.
EDIT: I found this information about the UK
Income Tax
58. Payments made as part of a NERC studentship are not regarded as income for income tax purposes.
Students should note, however, that earnings received during the final year from sources such as teaching
and demonstrating should be aggregated with income from post-award employment when assessing income
tax liability for the tax year in which the award ends.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/08/21 | 425 | 1,748 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm just about to go into my final year of my computing degree, and I want to continue to a PhD after completion. What preparations do I need to do prior to applying for grants/scholarships/funding?<issue_comment>username_1: Every school has its own requirements: typically, letters of recommendation, GRE tests, language tests. Check them with much advance: 1 year is not too soon, especially if you are applying for a US school as a foreigner.
Apart from that, nothing special: have a good academic record, and make sure that the first Google result for your name is not a college party Facebook picture in which you are drunken and naked.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: * Get good grades.
* Make sure (some of) your lecturers know who you are, so that you can ask for a recommendation letter.
* Get involved in some kind of research, either a thesis or something extracurricular.
* Work out what topic you want to study; at least have a first idea.
* Select relevant coursework based on the previous point.
* Don't be afraid of going abroad. Prepare yourself mentally for this **now**, so when the time comes to actually decide, you'll be ready. Check details such as visa requirements, as these can take 3-4 months to obtain.
* Research good universities who do what you want to do. Find out about their application procedure is and their deadline.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Apart from @Dave 's quite long list, I would also like to mention that by now you may decide on what area of research are you interested in and feel most confident about. This would help you to find the right professor/adviser and university and also keep you motivated in all good and bad times during your PhD.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/21 | 618 | 2,436 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently I've been receiving an increasing number of invitations to submit papers to several new Open-Access journals published by [Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP)](http://www.scirp.org/).
Has anybody here had any direct interactions with any of their journals? If so, what is your opinion?
I googled around a bit and they do not seem to be an exceedingly serious outfit. Although I have no intention of publishing there, I think this discussion may be useful for others receiving the same, or similar, invitations.<issue_comment>username_1: This recent [*Nature* news item](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html) would seem to suggest rather strongly that SCIRP is not a serious outfit. Given the ethical improprieties mentioned in that article, staying away from such journals with a ten-foot pole (or longer) seems advisable.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Scientific Research Publishing is currently listed in [Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers](http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355), so it isn't a good idea to submit papers to their journals.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, I do indeed have some direct experience with them. I've [written about it on my blog](http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102).
Summary: The SCIRP journal *Advances in Pure Mathematics* provisionally accepted a randomly-generated nonsense paper. This seems a clear indication that their peer-review process is a sham, and that they are essentially a vanity press, and not a "serious outfit" at all.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: If you have preprints posted on a preprint server or on the arXiv, they will ask you to remove them before reviewing your work. I am unaware of other open access publishers who insist that all prior revisions of a work be removed before the current version is reviewed. Submission to a preprint server such as the arXiv is encouraged by some journals in some fields (e.g., mathematics). Removal from the arXiv is all but impossible after submission. The refereeing process does not strike me as serious, e.g., referees have been known to ask authors to remove citations to personal communications from submitted manuscripts. There is nothing wrong with citing correspondence; disallowing such citations is bizarre, goes against accepted scholarly practice and, at worst, encourages plagiarism.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/21 | 1,231 | 4,958 | <issue_start>username_0: Sometimes I receive some emails to attend scientific conferences organized in beautiful tourist places.
For example, recently I got a message for a conference in the wonderful [Italian Cinque Terre](http://www.cinqueterre.it/info.php), that was promoting both the conference scientific relevance and the beauty of the city locations.
Or, another time, I received a message that invited me to attend a conference in the marvelous mountains of [Bardonecchia](http://www.bardonecchiaski.com/) next winter. In this case, the mail said that organizers would provide a ski pass for skiing activities for any participant.
These kind of conferences leaves me quite doubtful.
The aim of the organizers is obvious: to sum up the beauty of the places to the scientific importance of the conference, to convince more people to attend.
**But is it fair?**
I'm wondering: is it right to organize conferences in wonderful places, to make people coming more for the beauty of the places than for the scientific relevance of the event?
Should not a conference be attended **just and only** for the scientific relevance?
Does it have to be necessarily a **partial vacation** for attendees?<issue_comment>username_1: I would argue that so-called "travel junkets"—such as conferences with dubious scientific or technical content—that are organized in exotic locales *more* to provide a vacation for attendees than to provide a rewarding scientific exchange are largely indefensible, and I certainly would not authorize use of my group's travel funds to attend such conferences, either for myself or for my group members.
However, I see nothing wrong with combining a high-quality scientific program with pleasant surroundings and environments that make attending more of a pleasure. Academics are humans, too, and can certainly enjoy aesthetics and exploration just as much as anybody else! For instance, I much prefer attending conferences in cities like Boston or San Francisco in the US than I do conferences in (for example) Cincinnati or Salt Lake City, because of the range of things to do and see in the former cities is so much greater than in the latter. That doesn't mean I won't go to the latter—but it does mean that the conference will have to do a better job of selling itself than one that's located somewhere more "interesting."
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Fairness is not a point at all in the organisation of conferences. The goals of the organisers of an event (scientific or not) is to have as much incentive as possible for people to come.
Indeed, most of the time, the organisation part has to be done *before* knowing the exact number of attendees, and the organisers still need to cover the expenses in terms of room rental, catering, etc. There are many ways to attract researchers for a conference:
* Organise a high quality conference, where the scientific interest alone make it worth to come.
* Select a "paradise" location, such that the attendees can just show up for their session, and then relax on the beach or on the ski slopes.
* Select an "interesting" location, where people wouldn't go normally in vacation, but that could be a good opportunity.
* Select a quiet place, with few distractions, allowing the attendees to focus as much as possible on work. The [Dagstuhl seminars](http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/dagstuhl-seminars/) are quite famous for that.
* Select a conveniently located place, such that it will be easy (and cheap) for many attendees to come.
* Select a "cheap" place, for instance by organising during summer in a university, where you get the rooms for free, and where housing can be cheap. It can be a nice way to attract many students.
Clearly, in general, it's a mix of those, and you can't maximise all of them. And then, as username_1 said, it's a matter of whether you can get funding to attend the conference. But the question of whether is fair or not is not really relevant.
EDIT: I have rephrased the answer following David's comment. Clearly, an important point is that there is always a targeted audience for any event. If you want to organise a conference on an extremely specific topic, maybe there are only 20 researchers who could be interested. The job of the organisers is therefore to find the best way to attract as many as possible from these 20. I also want to make the difference between the *reason* behind organising an event, e.g., advance science, create collaboration, make money (for some scam conf) and the goals to reach in terms of organisation.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Often a “beautiful tourist place”
* Has cheap flights to it.
* Has cheap hotels.
* Has lots of flights to it.
Even for conferences that only have people from the UK going, it can often be more cost effective to run them outside of the UK.
But even given the above, it can be a problem being seen to be going if public funds are paying.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/21 | 468 | 1,998 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm currently in the process of applying for various scholarships to fund my PhD.
Since I'm writing to many different organizations/institutions/etc., I started wondering whether these different funding schemes can be combined. I found it hard to find any reliable information on this matter, so I reckoned I'd ask it here:
Suppose I successfully obtain two scholarships, in two different countries, amounting to roughly $15.000 and $25.000 annually, both *excluding* coverage for university tuition fees. Should I notify both of them of having obtained the other? Or should I make absolutely sure they'll never find out :) ?
I suppose there'll be severe consequences to keeping it silent -- if so, what?<issue_comment>username_1: You should not accept both.
To check the rules, you should notify each of the providers, in case this is not allowed by one of the universities. I know of one student thrown out of two universities because of this (one of them was a Dutch university). This is more or less equivalent to **goodbye academic career**.
You may be able to get funding from one university and supplement it with further funding from the same university, assuming that this is within the rules.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Dave's answer is mostly correct: you should not accept both *without the explicit written permission of both scholarship providers.*
Some scholarships can be combined, if the fellowship sponsor allows it. However, in general, large-scale fellowships cannot usually be accepted in conjunction with other fellowships. You'll need to choose one or the other.
On the other hand, if you're talking about actual scholarships—by which I mean cash awards directly to you, without being tied to a specific course of study at a specific university—the rules may be more relaxed.
The important thing is to read the rules and conditions associated with each award, and then to ask the sponsors if you have any questions.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/08/21 | 335 | 1,425 | <issue_start>username_0: What are the benefits of getting a PhD in statistics over a MS in statistics (other than being a professor)? Do people with PhDs in statistics earn significantly more than people with MS degrees in statistics?
More generally, does a PhD in a quantitative field provide a salary advantage over a MS in a quantitative field?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, this greatly depends on where you get your degree from. Sometimes people who have done just MS are able to get to the bottom of the thing and can use their knowledge of statistics on a practical level. It depends on how solid your concepts are. Once you are in some position earned through your sound academic record you can grow quite fast.
So, if you have good record (not just grades but grasp), you may be able to get to the same level of salary as a PhD would. This is because statistics is an applied branch and is in demand.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Well, there's something different to consider. As a MS student you pay to study. As a PhD, you are paid to study. I know that depends between countries but where I am, a MS is terribly expensive.
The only reasons I see to do a MS instead of a PhD is when someone doesn't have good enough grades to get into a PhD or because they want to shift their area a lot: for example, a chemist taking a master in Biochemistry because he wants a PhD in Cell biology.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/08/21 | 1,220 | 5,409 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently, I became aware by own experiences and friend's stories that some international statistical journals (whose names I prefer to omit) are rejecting papers because they do not include a reference of the journal in question. This is, if you do not cite a paper from journal X, then you cannot attempt to publish a paper in journal X.
This, of course, has an influence on the Impact Factor of the journal and the administrators are trying to increase this.
Are there explicit regulations regarding these issues? Is it possible to denounce this kind of behaviour?<issue_comment>username_1: There are no explicit regulations regarding impact factors; the definition is too simple. (In terms of complexity, it's a lot like calculating a slugging average in baseball. So it's open to a lot of manipulation, and all of it is permissible. However, permissible does *not* mean ethical, and this is clearly a situation where, if true, the journal editors are trying to manipulate statistics to make their journal look better. Such a policy, if done with the intent of manipulating statistics, is deplorable, and should be denounced—via web campaigns, blog posts, open letters, and so on.
That said, there is a counterargument that is less nefarious in aim. It is possible to argue that you should, in general, cite *some* article from the journal you're submitting a paper to. If you can't do that, why is your article suitable for submission to that journal (let's call it journal X)? Presumably, there are a number of other journals (A, B, C, etc.) whose works you have cited instead of X. In that case, the journal could argue that your paper is a better fit for journals A, B, and C instead.
Since it's not clear *for which reason* the journal has the self-citing policy, I would make sure that you can determine it convincingly, one way or the other, to avoid embarrassing yourself. The last thing you want to do is spearhead a campaign that turns a molehill into a mountain.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Not quite the same thing, but I was once requested by the EIC of a journal to add some references to papers published in the journal in question to a paper that I had submitted, explicitly to promote the journal by improving its impact factor. I did not comply with this request; the papers that were relevant were already in the reference list. Sadly this sort of thing is becoming increasingly common (as is manipulation of review times etc.), although rejecting a paper on such grounds would be taking things to another level!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The impact factor is what, 3-year moving average? 5-year moving average? Cite something that is 17 or 20 years old, let them have it.
I wonder, though, if you can find any suitable wording in [the Ethical Guidelines of the American Statistical Association](http://www.amstat.org/about/ethicalguidelines.cfm), say, that would indicate the editor stepping over them. Article A.10 requires
>
> Disclose conflicts of interest, financial and otherwise, and resolve them. This may sometimes require divestiture of the conflicting personal interest or withdrawal from the professional activity. Examples where conflict of interest may be problematic include grant reviews, other peer reviews, and tensions between scholarship and personal or family financial interests.
>
>
>
If the editor is paid more for the greater impact factor, or is more likely to get promoted, then of course this constitutes a clear conflict of interest. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds: if editorship of a prestigious journal is considered to be a part of the service component of a university professor evaluation, and the said editor claims in their annual report that the IF of the journal went up last year, and finally that on the basis of this claim the professor gets their annual raise, then the causal chain does link the greater impact factor with money.
Articles H.4 and H.5 state:
>
> Support sound statistical analysis and expose incompetent or corrupt statistical practice. In cases of conflict, statistical practitioners and those employing them are encouraged to resolve issues of ethical practice privately. If private resolution is not possible, recognize that statistical practitioners have an ethical obligation to expose incompetent or corrupt practice before it can cause harm to research subjects or society at large.
>
>
> Recognize that within organizations and within professions using statistical methods generally, statistics practitioners with greater prestige, power, or status have a responsibility to protect the professional freedom and responsibility of more subordinate statistical practitioners who comply with these guidelines.
>
>
>
So the editor, being in the position of power, has this responsibility to protect your professional freedom of citing whatever you consider relevant. You, however, also have the ethical obligation to expose the corrupt practices... which you are doing here on this website, and I commend you for reaching out.
I think it is appropriate to send an email to the leader of whatever professional organization you expect the editors to be members of, and inquire whether the request for citations would constitute a breach in the ethics. Knowing a little bit about how ASA works, I can help you identify the relevant person.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/22 | 566 | 2,585 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently finished my PhD thesis which will be published as a book soon.
Now I'm wondering if it's possible or allowed to submit parts to a journal?
Normally the process would be the other way round I think: Submitting papers and "gluing" them together for the thesis. I've read the guidelines of some journals which state "that the work described has not been published before" or that "Papers must present scientific results that are essentially new".<issue_comment>username_1: In general, this is allowed, even encouraged.
The answer depends on what kind of book you are publishing. If it is the regular dissertation, then you can publish in journals. If it is a properly published book by Springer or equivalent, then I doubt that you can publish again.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: As a general rule, you cannot publish anything as original research that has already been published. (You may be able to reprint it in other venues, but most research journals do not do this.)
Of course, the trick is what counts as "already published". Nowadays, many publishers (including all mathematics publishers, for example) do not count informal distribution on the internet as prior publication. It's common not to count extended abstracts from conference proceedings, although the journal may require some revisions or extensions. Nobody counts submitting a dissertation as prior publication, even if the university makes it available for download or purchase, and technical reports are generally in the same category.
On the other hand, publication as a "real book" definitely counts as prior publication and would rule out journals. Of course, this just brings up the question of what a "real book" is. Basically, if it's published by a serious academic publisher, with some nontrivial selection and editorial advice, then that counts as publication. On the other hand, if it's some random publisher printing copies of Ph.D. theses and selling them online, then you could make a strong case that it's not really published (and that this is not so different from ordering a dissertation copy).
However, I think you need to discuss this explicitly when submitting your paper. For example, you could add a sentence to your submission letter along the lines of "This work is based on my thesis from University X, which is available for sale by Y but has not been traditionally published". It's much better to deal with this upfront than to have someone later ask "Wait, why is someone selling copies of this work online?"
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/08/23 | 545 | 2,433 | <issue_start>username_0: If one changes careers/subjects dramatically, would it be necessary in the interest of full disclosure to include irrelevant aspects of the educational background and work-experience etc. ?
For instance if somebody has an undergraduate degree in politics and 2 years of experience in PR but then goes on to an academic career in theoretical CS (essentially starting from scratch i.e. including an undergraduate degree), would it be better/necessary to clutter the CV by mentioning that earlier background ?
I guess there must be a certain degree of flexibility, as people would not include say a part-time job in the cafeteria etc. pp. but I am not sure what the academic conventions are in different scenarios. ( I am thinking about this in the context of applications for conferences, funding, workshops, travel funds etc. pp. )<issue_comment>username_1: The context for what the CV is going to be used for is key. I have a single CV that includes "everything" since I started grad school and selected things from before then including seemingly unimportant part time jobs. Having a long CV makes it easier for me to create short CVs because it means I need to delete things instead of remember things.
For your intended context, I would not include the work experience, but might include the degree in politics. Including that degree will likely lead people looking at your CV to think you are older (which might be a pro or a con). If you are worried about age discrimination, I would drop it completely.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your intuition is correct; filler like that is very easily detected as filler. However, it does serve a useful purpose, in that it informs the person reading the CV what you've been doing for the past few years. If you do mention anything, I would just list the single most recent item. Any more than that would simply exaggerate the fact that you made a career shift, and doesn't provide any useful information.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If I understood you correctly, even for getting the side benefits (attending conference,travel funds) you need not include *irrelevant* information in your CV.
One need not *clutter* the CV with something that is far from the requirement of the job. It does not matter how many things you did but rather how much of few things you did. These were my thoughts on your question.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/23 | 1,842 | 6,850 | <issue_start>username_0: Which personal pronoun is appropriate in single-author papers - 'I' or 'we'? Could the use of 'I' be considered egotistical? Or will the use of 'we' be considered to be grammatically incorrect?<issue_comment>username_1: Authorial "we" is quite common, even in single author papers (at least in math and related fields). The explanation I've heard is that it should be read as both the writer and the reader (as in "we now prove...", meaning that we two shall now prove it together). Some people find it awkward, and insist on "I", but this is unusual (and I've heard of referees demanding "we"). In cases where "we" is truly nonsensical (for instance, introducing a list of people being thanked), people who avoid "I" either find an alternate phrasing or refer to themselves in the third person ("The author would like to thank...").
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Very rarely is 'I' used in scholarly writing (at least in math and the sciences). A much more common choice is 'we', as in "the author and the reader". For example: "We examine the case when..."
One exception to this rule is if you're writing a memoir or some other sort of "personal piece" for which the identity of the author is particularly relevant.
Now let me quote <NAME> (Section 12 of "How to Write Mathematics"):
>
> One aspect of expository style that frequently bothers beginning authors is the use of the editorial "we", as opposed to the singular "I", or the neutral "one". It is in matters like this that common sense is most important. For what it's worth, I present here my recommendation.
>
>
> Since the best expository style is the least obtrusive one, I tend nowadays to prefer the neutral approach. That does *not* mean using "one" often, or ever; sentences like "one has thus proved that..." are awful. It does mean the complete avoidance of the first person pronouns in either singular or plural. "Since *p*, it follows that *q*." "This implies *p*." "An application of *p* to *q* yields *r*." Most (all ?) mathematical writing is (should be ?) factual; simple declarative statements are the best for communicating facts.
>
>
> A frequently effective time-saving device is the use of the imperative. "To find *p*, multiply *q* by *r*." "Given *p*, put *q* equal to *r*."...
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with the editorial "we", but if you like it, do not misuse it. Let "we" mean "the author and the reader" (or "the lecturer and the audience"). Thus, it is fine to say "Using Lemma 2 we can generalize Theorem 1", or "Lemma 3 gives us a technique for proving Theorem 4". It is not good to say "Our work on this result was done in 1969" (unless the voice is that of two authors, or more, speaking in unison), and "We thank our wife for her help with the typing" is always bad.
>
>
> The use of "I", and especially its overuse, sometimes has a repellent effect, as arrogance or ex-cathedra preaching, and, for that reason, I like to avoid it whenever possible. In short notes, obviously in personal historical remarks, and perhaps, in essays such as this, it has its place.
>
>
>
You can download the pdf of [Halmos' complete essay](http://www.math.washington.edu/~lind/Resources/Halmos.pdf).
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In single-author papers, I think consistency trumps any particular rule or style. As the Haimos essay suggests, you can achieve whatever style you choose; you just need to make sure that it makes sense.
For instance, don't switch back and forth between "I" and "we," or between active and passive constructions too close to one another. Make the use of "I" and "we" clear to indicate active participation in the project (for instance, for assumptions or approximations made, *you* choose that—unless it's something *everybody* does).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: There are already two good answers for this entry, one is also accepted. But I'm going to give my two cent answer anyway...
This is what I learned from a workshop on writing scientific texts. Basically, my suggestion would be avoid using either "we" or "I" in the whole paper, except the "Experiment and results" section1. The idea is that by using passive form in the text, you avoid both issues related to being egotistical or ungrammatical.
Then in the "Experiment and results" you use "We"2. Why not using passive form in "Experiment" section? Well, you could but the idea here is that these results can be produced by everyone, including readers. So "we" is not referring to author(s), but to author(s) and readers.
---
1. This might not be the case in fields that papers do not have an experimental section.
2. Once could object that this will result in inconstancy in paper which is a valid objection.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: ### The "*royal we*" works
The ["*royal we*"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we) suggests a hypothetical population of peers who hold some position. This hypothetical population may-or-may-not include the reader, at the reader's option. And since it's a hypothetical population with a subjective number of members, "*we*" is appropriate.
Even if you're talking about a real-world action that you did to perform a specific experimental step, it's still accurate to describe the hypothetical population as having performed that action.
This approach has a few advantages:
1. It's easier for readers to put themselves into your shoes as a member of the population engaging in the study.
2. It avoids distracting the reader with inconsistent pronouns for the authors across papers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: When not faced with a journal/publisher specific style, my go to style guide is APA. I really like the APA style blog. In this [post](http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2014/05/me-me-me.html) they explain:
>
> If you’re writing a paper alone, use I as your pronoun. If you have coauthors, use we.
>
>
>
They go on to lash out against the editorial *we*
>
> However, avoid using we to refer to broader sets of people—researchers, students, psychologists, Americans, people in general, or even all of humanity—without specifying who you mean (a practice called using the editorial “we”). This can introduce ambiguity into your writing.
>
>
>
There is also another [related post](http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2009/09/use-of-first-person-in-apa-style.html) about using *we* and avoiding ambiguity.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: It's field-dependent. English teachers told me the following:
* In STEM you use "we" for "the reader and the author(s)", regardless of how many authors you have. (Note that the "royal we" would be the wrong term, since the authors don't wish to sound as ostentatious in "we, the king of ...".)
* In languages, you use "I" if you are the sole author.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/23 | 1,303 | 5,467 | <issue_start>username_0: When you receive a paper proof and review it prior to publication, what exactly should you be looking for?
The things that come to mind are any changes in the annotation of author list and the corresponding author. What else is there?<issue_comment>username_1: This is basically the last chance to fix anything (non-substantial) in the paper, so in addition to the things you mentioned, I usually check for spelling or grammatical errors, misprints in formulas, etc. Sometimes one might want to add a sentence to clarify something.
Finally, if the journal did any copy-editing, you should check its job. Some journals provide a list of changes they made for that purpose. You should also check if the pictures and formulas are still in the right places.
Added: sometimes it's necessary to update the literature list, for example if preprints cited there have been published in the meantime.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Between your manuscript being accepted and the proofs being created two things are likely to happen: a copy editor may make changes and portions of the manuscript (e.g., tables) may be retyped (as the manuscript is converted from the format you submitted into the journal format). I know a number of PIs who get two people to look at the proofs. One person reads the proof out loud while the other person compares what was in the submitted version. I know one group that goes sentence-by-sentence backwards. The idea is you never know what will get screwed up in the conversion process. While I like the concept, I spend a lot less time going through the proofs.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One other thing to be concerned about is overzealous copy editors, particularly when it comes to highly mathematical papers. In one of the first manuscripts I ever submitted, the copy editor in question decided that what I wrote as (1/2)x really ought to be 1/(2x). This would have completely altered the intent and the results of the derivation and everything that followed!
So, the lesson of this is that you need to check *everything* that was changed by the copy editors. If they give you a "mark-up," review that first, and then make sure everything has been transferred correctly to the paper. If not, you'll need to go side-by-side with the submitted manuscript and the final proof, and make sure eveyrhing is as you intended it to be.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I always proofread the full paper, but not necessarily by comparing it word by word with the original. However, I give particular attention to:
* **Title, authors, affiliations**
* Abstract, introduction and conclusion
* **Figures and figure captions**. In particular:
+ quality of the graphics produced
+ do color and symbols mentioned in the caption match the figure?
+ if the journal has black & white figures in print, is the figure understandable in black and white?
+ if the journal has color figures only in the online version: does the caption make sense for both version (color and B&W)?
* **Equations**: most problems I saw introduced during typesetting were in equations. For many publishers, the text is transformed semi-automatically from your original file, but equations are re-keyed by an operator. People make mistakes.
* **Numbers**: all tables, all inline numbers. Units (a “kJ/mol” might become a “kJ mol”).
* References (citations are a key part of doing research):
+ if references are hyperlinked (using DOI number), click on each to check that they match the right online paper
+ if a paper is “in press” or “accepted for publication” or something else, update its status if it has been published
* Acknowledgment: somehow, I often find that I might have missed someone in the acknowledgment when writing the initial paper, and for most publishers it is not too late to add them :)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: For those who can afford Adobe Acrobat, there is a function called [compare documents](http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/file-compare-two-pdf-files.html). Here is how I usually proceed.
I generate the PDF of my submitted article. My PDF can even miss several items, like tables and figures (often submitted separateley). Then, I proceed to compare *the text* of my PDF and the proof. Text-only comparison is an option to be checked when comparing the documents.
The following is a screenshot of what I obtain. It is the proof with some highlighted parts of text. When I move the mouse pointer over the highlighted text, I see what the change was.
In the screenshot, I can see that I wrote *psychometrics”1.* while they wrote *psychometrics”.1*, inverting the *dot* and the *1*.
The approach works pretty good with tables.
I know it is not a great answer to tell people to buy an expensive proprietary software. However, it works fine for me. Hopefully there is a free/opensource PDF solution that does the same job.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: One more thing to watch for if the format has changed, say if you submitted the paper in some garden-variety LaTeX style and the journal converted it to its own style: The new line breaks can create hyphenation errors. In general, TeX is amazingly good at getting hyphenation right, but it's not infallible. One of my papers had the misfortune that "colimit" landed on a line break and was hyphenated "col-imit".
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/23 | 377 | 1,717 | <issue_start>username_0: What are the key information that should be included in a letter of support on a grant application? What information should I avoid?
I'm a theorist and I am planning to list my expertise and experience in similar problems. But I don't know how to convey that I would actually support the project if funded.<issue_comment>username_1: A good letter of support, in my mind, should:
* Convey a clear understanding of the proposal in question;
* Demonstrate that the letter writer is in a position to support the application—in other words, she has the requisite experience to contribute;
* Clearly indicate what the writer will do to support the grant in the event it gets funded.
I recently contributed such a letter for an educational grant. I cited my research, which was a fit for the program; and conveyed support for the program as the academic administrator of a summer program as well as a mentor in that same program. I also clearly conveyed my intention to support the program by directly mentoring a program fellow.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are usually specific guidelines for letters of support. For example, the NSF discourages letters of support for typical grant applications unless the support letter lists concrete things the letter writer will be contributing to the project (and then those things need to be listed). Since you're writing a letter for someone else's application, it's best to ask them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Avoid writing anything negative in the letter, even if it is constructive criticism. Some committees processing grant applications will use any evidence they can find to kill a proposal.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/23 | 830 | 3,558 | <issue_start>username_0: *I mainly refer to applied mathematics when describing my experience*
Often I find that it is easier to grasp a concept from the author's slides than from the description in a paper. When one has to summarize their findings for a talk, they often end up with an exposition that gives a clearer understanding of the "big picture" and the nontrivial details. It is easier to separate what is important and what is not. If someone really needs more detail and rigour, they can check the paper, but I think that 90% of the readership would get more from the slides than from the paper.
Of course a real paper is still necessary, to provide details to the interested reader and to testify that the details work indeed (and the referees can certify it).
However, slides are typically difficult to find. Some scientists self-archive (a subset of) their slides on their personal web pages; some others are hidden in conference sites. No database such as Scopus indexes them. It is often tricky to match up a paper and its slides.
So, my question is the following.
---
Is there any journal that publishes slides together with their papers? Or slides only? Or, more generally, that tries to experiment and consider similar less formal media for presenting real science?
---<issue_comment>username_1: I **don't know of any such journal**. The closest I've come to this is that often **after I've listened to a talk, I've asked the speaker for his slides**. I can't recall ever being turned down. Alternatively, if you can't attend a talk, you might still ask the speaker for his/her slides. This request will likely be a bit more successful in person, but even via email it can't hurt to try.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I do not know about any such journal. But one idea could be to archive your papers on a pre-print server, such as arXiv and always append your slides as an appendix.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: All the Nature journals and Science make their figures available as PPT slides with the captions available as comments, presumably to facilitate their use in journal clubs. Tinkering with something such as TikZ for a bit will tell you that it's not trivial to productively annotate equations.
Perhaps, and I don't say this glibly, you would deepen your understanding of difficult papers by making the slides you wish you had. It helped me.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Elsevier journals now offer [AudioSlides](http://www.elsevier.com/about/content-innovation/audioslides-author-presentations-for-journal-articles),
>
> short, webcast-style presentations that are shown next to the online article on ScienceDirect. This format gives authors the opportunity to present their research in their own words, helping readers to quickly understand what a paper is about and appreciate its relevance.
>
>
>
Hopefully this is what you're looking for.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: With many, perhaps most) journals it is possible to add materials,often referred to as *Supplementary Material* or *Supporting Information* or something similar. This can be word files, powerpoint files, excel files (or equivalents), media files (sound, movies, animations) containing material that support the article but cannot be accommodated within the usual journal format.
I am, however, not sure if a slide presentation of the article material would be permitted since it would not necessarily add anything new but rather be a simplification of the article content.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/24 | 967 | 3,798 | <issue_start>username_0: One book I ordered this semester is a loose leaf book (3-hole punched) that I'm currently keeping in a binder. Problem is, the pages are quite thin, and tear very easily near the hole punches. What can I do to help prevent this?<issue_comment>username_1: In the olden days, you could buy little sticky circles that you'd place around the holes and this would prevent the pages tearing out of the binder.
Another approach is to put the whole thing in a box.
Or maybe scan the document and carry it around on your iPad – that's probably the modern solution.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Find someone who has access to a document scanner and scan it. Our departmental copier/printer can also scan (I think the spec is 100 ppm), so 2000 pages will take a while, but not forever.
EDIT: Have you contacted the author to see if an electronic version is available?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You could take the book to a copy shop, and have it binded properly (e.g., hot glue, hardback, etc.). Here in the Netherlands, that costs about 3 euros for a simple but effective glued back.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Manufacturers should either reinforce the page edges or stop hole-punching the pages; the paper is just too thin for the books to be used in 3-ring binders. One solution I found is to use reinforcing strips. They are pre-cut to page-size (10.75" by 1"), but are not hole-punched. You stick them on the page edge and then hole-punch it. You don't necessarily need to reinforce all of the pages of your book, just the first few pages in the front and back and the occasional page that gets torn out.
One of the advantages of loose-leaf books is that you don't have to carry all of the chapters in your backpack. You can take the chapter you are reading, and possibly the index, glossary, answers, etc., and leave the rest of the weight at home. One way to do this is to use swing-clip or zip-up report covers. Since the covers can be reused, this is also an environmentally-friendly way to solve the problem. After all, one of the reasons loose-leaf books are made is to reduce waste, especially for books that become outdated each year when a new edition is printed. Loose-leaf books require less material to manufacture and less fuel to ship.
One final idea is to bind the book using binding post screws or brads (available at office supply stores). Make a cover for your book with two pieces of cardboard (possibly from the backs of old notebooks), hole-punch, place your pages inside, and then bind the whole thing with screws or brads.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I use Acco Pressboard Covers for exactly this purpose, and they work great.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: These work wonderfully.
<http://www.bindingdepot.com/Shop-BD/Chicago-SCREW-POSTS/>
you can break it up into groups of chapters, but make a copy of the front table of contents and the back index for each bound group that you want. these posts unscrew so you can switch it around when you want.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: I use a binder AND a pressboard. In the binder I use tabbed dividers, one at table of contents one at the break between chapters I am currently using and one at the start of the index. Then in the press board I only have the current working chapter.
It works for me. My original idea was just to pressboard all the chapters but I ran out of them before I got done, so binder and 1 pressboard.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: In the past, I have bought a small 3 ring binder, and just removed 1 chapter at a time to put in the binder. The great thing about this is you don't have to carry around hundreds of pages the entire year, when you only are using a few dozen at a time.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/24 | 1,480 | 6,097 | <issue_start>username_0: I am currently working in a manufacturing company as a software developer and have just completed my masters in control and automation in 2011 with my bachelors in "Electrical and Electronics". My main reason for doing my first masters is to change to my domain from IT where I was working as a programmer for 1.5 yrs. Now I am thinking of doing a second master's degree in mechatronics, because I am short of some knowledge in the electrical and automation field which I think is must for me to become an expert in the factory automation field.
Even though I feel it will be helpful for my personal career and reputation.
I find some doubts whether a person having a double degree is welcomed in the job market or not. Also Frankly, In my opinion, I used to think that who are having many degrees as people who run away from real-world jobs and are not as competent as those who have years of experience. Another thing is I also want to do MBA after 5 or 6 years. So, **can someone tell me what are the pros and cons of having multiple degrees?**<issue_comment>username_1: Pros... it certainly doesn't do any harm, you will learn something, and there is always the personal development aspect.
Cons... if you are going to make the effort to get a second Masters, why not build on the existing Masters and get a PhD? That is worth a lot more than a second Masters.
MBA... in my opinion, not worth a thing. A con. Not a true Masters by any standard.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Learning something new is always a plus. Anything that makes you better at what you do and furthers your academic/career goals is definitely a good thing.
It's hard to come up with a "con" of having multiple degrees. If I had to come up with something, I would say that it may give the impression that you lack focus for a particular field. So just be prepared to answer questions as to "why" you pursued master's degrees (in different fields) in an interview.
To echo what username_1 said; I won't go so far as to say that a MBA is not worth it. But the truth is that many, many people in business have MBAs today. So many, that (my opinion) getting one doesn't help you stand-out professionally any more than having a bachelor's degree does. That is where having a master's degree (or multiple in your case) is a definite plus.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Since control systems like Mechatronics is related to both Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering (EE) and doing a Masters is not bad but why not get a PhD in EE with Mechatronics as specialization. This would not only take you to a higher level but also deepen your knowledge. But this is only reasonable when you are available full time and are able able to get into a university that offer such course/opportunity. This may not be easy.
Having said that, if you want to just deepen your knowledge of electrical and automation field **which you think is must for you**, it is faster to do a Masters. I do not think it has any big disadvantage. In addition, it is relatively easier to get into a program (including part time).
As for MBA, if you are thinking of doing it after 5-6 years, why bother about that now. So many things can change by then. Since, it is an entirely different training of your carreer, I do not think you will have to regret it being a third Masters degree.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I have a BS in Electrical Engineering , MS in Mechanical Engineering and MS in Computer Science. I now work at a small company that allows me to practice a bit of software, circuits and mechanical design.
Pros:
-----
* Gain academic insight into the details of each field.
* Helps in placement in jobs requiring skills in many discplines.
* My research and paper writing skills greatly improved after the 2nd masters (and thesis)
* I was in the MS/PHD program and had no tuition costs for my 4 years of grad school.
Cons:
-----
* Lots of time in school ( I spent 8 years in the university setting)
* Loss of potential earnings while in school
*Summary:* I have no regrets about my graduate degree history. However, I would probably spend more time choosing advisors and research topics if I had to do it all over again.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: As someone who holds an MBA (<NAME>) from a prestigious British business school, and who has gone on to teach at several highly ranked B Schools around the world, I can tell you why MBAs are receiving a poor reputation. It is that about 25-30 years ago they were seen as a "wonder drug". We'll just ship this person off to business school and in 2 years we will have our new CEO.
On the first day of our registration for the MBA our Dean came to speak to the new class and he emphasized one thing. "The MBA is just a ticket to the ball - You still have to dance!" What that means is that while the MBA should open doors quicker for you, you would still have to prove your competence in the various business areas you work in. The MBA is meant to give business professionals who are skilled in one particular area of business (say finance) insight into how other areas of business (marketing or human resources) are inter-related.
It was never meant to build business professionals (you were supposed to be that already when you arrived) it is meant to build a holistic vision of a business, so that strategy can be developed and executed.
Too often people think their MBA is supposed to be functional specific. A HR professional should be promoted to senior HR professional because she has a an MBA. That is unrealistic. HR is still HR and promotion depends on your competence in HR, but when you start entering more senior management and you need to understand how brand management affects your ability to hire and attract the best staff or how HR professionals have to assess a HR project to incorporate different and the right skills into the completion of a project and why that project has to be completed within a specific time frame and budget, then the actual role of the MBA is seen.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/08/24 | 464 | 1,789 | <issue_start>username_0: Identifying uniquely a researcher as author of a publication is important. There is a commercial effort to create researcher ID for every researcher. It is not likely to succeed if it is not multiple publisher effort. Something like DOI and CrossRef.
Is there truly non-commercial alternative emerging?<issue_comment>username_1: [ORCID](http://about.orcid.org/) is supposed to take care of that and it seems to gain significant traction. According to [this presentation](http://about.orcid.org/content/orcid-staus-and-plans-2012), it should be launched in fall this year (2012). However, I am not sure whether it falls under your definition of "non-commercial".
I am myself very curious about it, my hopes are that finally it will take care of disambiguation of names like "<NAME>" - for me e.g., Web of Science database is practically unusable as it shows several thousands of papers for my name :-|.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: For those of us in particle physics and related fields [inSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net/?ln=en)'s [HepNames](http://inspirehep.net/collection/HepNames)1 service assigns a unique ID to each researcher (though they are rarely used outside of the database) and keeps track of their professional history, publications, citations and so on. [My inSPIRE record](http://inspirehep.net/record/1046133?ln=en) is not really that inspiring, but there it is.
---
1 The successor project to the original SPIRES; inSPIRE also supports a rich search operation across affiliations, publications, names, and other data.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: [Wikidata](https://www.wikidata.org) seems to build up a system where researchers who write articles that are citable by Wikipedia get unique IDs.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/08/25 | 415 | 1,723 | <issue_start>username_0: For the new faculty orientation, there is a get together where they will ask every new faculty member of all departments to say a few words about him/her self.
What are the best practices regarding that? any advice/examples/templates of how to do that briefly, eloquently and professionally?<issue_comment>username_1: Partly, you'll want to **copy what others are doing**. If everyone else only talks for 15 or 20 seconds, then almost anything that you say in a 3-minute monologue will be poorly received. Information that you'll likely want to mention includes: **name**, **department**, **research interests**, possibly **where you've just moved from**, and maybe **a bit about you personally** (I enjoy triathlons; married with two kids; active in a barbershop quartet; etc.) One point about your research interests: keep it **very nontechnical**. Rather than give many details, say something like *I write computer programs to help blind people use computers*, or *I study 18th century literature, particularly the works of SoandSo*. Most likely, this activity will be pretty informal. If you're still a little nervous about it, you might ask another junior faculty member in your department.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Assuming you have many departments, mostly your speech shouldn't cross 1 minute max. You should include below details.
Full Name and Native Place
Department,
Job post ( Jr / Sr / Head etc )
Year of experience, Previous work place if any
Specialization/ Research subject, Anything additional course you are taking for future, future prospects.
if time permits abt family. Welcome others and happy to join the team to move further.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/26 | 1,836 | 7,743 | <issue_start>username_0: A typical freshman course on calculus has about 100 students every semester. If the course is divided into 4 sections, each has 25 students and a different instructor.
Because the instructors are different, a student's grade may strongly depend on who teaches his section. Lazy students could ask other students before registering who is the easiest grader or who makes easy or straightforward exams, etc. This is unfair to the rest of the students.
Has anybody else faced the same problem? And how did you overcome it?
What criteria one should impose to guarantee that a student's grade will only weakly depend on who is teaching him?.
We are thinking about giving all sections the same midterms and finals. But, obviously this is not enough<issue_comment>username_1: You already said, *"we are thinking about making same midterms and same finals exams to all sections, but obviously this is not enough"*.
In effect it is not possible on a practical level to be equal since it all depends on how each professor teach and interact with his/her students. Each professor has specific personality and way of doing things which different people/student would like and dislike. However, somehow the following principles are followed by each professor, each class may be comparably good:
1. Professors are dedicated to student's welfare
2. There is a good understanding among the professors and they are in agreement with what should be taught (This may include regular meetings among themselves)
Apart from this each professor has his/her natural way of teaching that he/she is most confident about and this cannot be separated.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Aside from having common exams, one possibility is to withhold the names of the instructors until the registration is finished. In that way, students cannot choose sections based on who is teaching it.
Another possibility is to have all, say, 4 teachers teach all 4 sections: Teacher "W" teaches section "A" during the first quarter, then teaches section "B" during the second quarter, ..., while teacher "X" teaches section "B" during the first quarter, etc.
I do not completely agree with your statement that "the student grade in any section will strongly depend on who is teaching it." I think that the teacher is a factor, but not the main factor. An extremely lazy and weak student will fail no matter who the teacher is; An extremely hardworking and strong student will pass no matter who the teacher is. I believe the student is the main factor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The above is the common situation in Israel. Most of the freshmen-year classes are given by multiple lecturers, while the students are tested by the same midterm and final. They also have exactly the same homeworks and due dates, etc.
Officially, the sections are "identical". One professor is declared as the leading-professor and s/he sets the syllabus and takes any course-wide decision. Since all the professors are aware that the homeworks/exams are the same, they all teach the same material, more or less, giving the same emphasis on different subjects, more or less, etc. It should be the case that if one student misses one lecture at some week, s/he can go the the other lecture and be able to continue from the same point.
Of course, this is not perfect, and the different sections are not "identical", but rather, "close enough". In addition, an important thing is that students can choose which section to go. Indeed, sometimes "good lecturers" gets a class full of students (with people sitting on the floor, etc) while "bad" lecturers teach a half-empty class. Most of the times, there are no "bad" lecturers (there are better and worse, but many time the difference is not substantial enough that students change their schedule), so most of the classes are 70-90% full on avg.
Exams are graded by the same team, regardless of the section you are enrolled to. In general, the sections are "technical" partition, and any decision is course-wide and not section-wide. All students from all sections should be treated the same in the most objective way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: So far, I think this is better to make a rotation of the instructor. Split the course in 4 parts, each part being taught by one instructor to all the students. Each part is graded independently by each instructor as well.
If this is not doable (slots in parallel, with a strong sequencing of the content), then the only thing I can think of this making as much grading as possible in common (same exam, etc.) and normalize the grades for the rest.
Another possible way of action is to randomly select the correspondence between groups and exams. Let me be clearer: let say that two instructors A and B give a lecture in common. We toss a coin to decide whether group A (or B) have exam by instructor A. In that way, students cannot have a strategy that maximizes their grades.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The more common problem across multiple sections of large courses taught by several different instructors is content drift, not grade drift. At my institution we have three General Chemistry I sections, and the distributions of A's, B's, and C's among the students does not change significantly depending on which of 6 people teach the course. The distribution of D's and F's does vary, however. What is more troublesome to us is that some instructors will cover 8 chapters, some will cover 9, some 10, and so on.
However, if you really want to minimize grade drift, then do the following, which will also eliminate content drift:
1. Coordinate the class - same textbook, same syllabus, identical assignments, exams, everything.
2. Agree ahead of time on a common grading policy, including cutoffs, curves, grade disputes, etc., **and enforce it uniformly**.
3. Teach from a common outline so that all sections get the same material in the same week.
4. Meet frequently, including at least one meeting before the class starts.
5. Grade equitably, which may seem difficult, unless you do the following: Professor A grades all of Assignment 1 across all 4 sections. Professor B grades all of assignment 2, etc. Better yet, hire one person (a grad student maybe) to do all of the grading for all 4 sections.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: I did upvote most of the other answers... but would like to add something:
Yes, it is important to try to be "fair". Sometimes, "uniformity" is the best approximation we can systematically arrange to "fairness". Other answers discussed how to implement this (common mid-terms, common finals).
However, there is sometimes a danger that "uniformity" seems to demand that everyone's situation be degraded to that which can be guaranteed for everyone else. That is, while it is highly desirable to guard against bad effects of poor teaching, it is surely also desirable to not prevent *benefits* of *good* teaching, as a side effect of administrative design.
Similarly, while the impulse is understandable, keeping instructors "secret" so that students cannot seek out desirable instructors (desirable for both wholesome and less-than-wholesome reasons) is a bit perverse, in my opinion. Namely, it always seems to me that "equality" achieved by suppressing information is not at all moving to maximize social welfare, but only "equalizing" it in a rather poor, default sense.
Students "voting with their feet" is a "problem" at all levels, and some of that is reasonable, some unreasonable, of course. But the "solution" of having instructors be "secret" amounts to merely ignoring *genuine* issues in the situation by trying to obliterate information.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/28 | 614 | 2,510 | <issue_start>username_0: I often come across papers which have a 'Novel' in their titles. In the content the authors go out of their way to explain how their work is the *first to the best of their knowledge* to come up with the results.
Isn't novelty a necessity in research papers? Is a separate emphasis really needed? What is the best way to convey novelty without sounding extravagant?<issue_comment>username_1: The authors need to make it clear that the paper makes a contribution and to be explicit about what that contribution is. Otherwise the work is not original and does not deserve to be published. (This excludes survey papers and such things.)
The emphasis on novelty need not, however, be placed so explicitly in the title.
Good ways of emphasizing the novelty are
* Include a short discussion at the end of the introduction stating explicitly what the contributions of the paper are.
* Back this up with **evidence** in the body of the paper.
* A proper **comparison** with related work. (As El Cid's answer states.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would rather comment on @Dave's points, but since I have no reputation, here goes my comment/answer :-)
I personally was taught not to put "novel" or "to-the-best-of-my-knowledge" or any other weasel words in the papers, so I also do not like the cited examples, if and when I review papers.
What is most often overseen in papers is the "related work" (apart from the discussion section, which I believe belongs more to a journal-type publication), and how the paper makes an advance to the field. The authors should emphasise what the state of the art is, and how the paper advances it. That is what makes me judge for an accept or reject, rather than "incredible results". But it is also true that when you're growing "older" you look for different things in papers, and that "younger" reviewers are more easily captivated by strong claims.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I usually employ the following interpretations:
* "best-of-our-knowledge" means that the authors were too lazy to search for existing work.
* "novel" and the like in the title means that something very close already exists for ages.
Novelty (a contribution improving on the previous state-of-the-art) is necessary, such emphasis is not.
Regarding how to "convey novelty": It is absolutely required to explain why it is new instead of asserting that it is. This holds for both the title and the body of the article.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/28 | 1,849 | 7,957 | <issue_start>username_0: Assume you have already completed your undergrad and have been working for a number of years. Does one need to be part of a university or a learning institution to publish papers?<issue_comment>username_1: Absolutely not. Affiliations do not matter; what matters is the value and the fit of the contribution to the journal or the conference to which you are submitting.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: While it is not true that you should be in academia to publish papers, I'll give my two cents on what I learned so far:
1. If you work in industry and you write technical papers, your contributions are well-accepted, although they're typically more focused on certain practical aspects.
2. Authors writing by themselves are welcome, but they somehow are not very common because they lack the ability of writing an academic paper: they do not lack the message or the content of a paper, but just the structure, and that's something that you learn in an academic environment.
3. The reviewing process is not everywhere "double-blinded", so as a reviewer you do see the affiliation of who wrote the article, while they do not know you as a reviewer. I know that it's frowned upon, but I've read comments in the afterwards discussion (before the formal decisions) where reviewers pointed at the lack of a proper affiliation, or the "Who's this guy? where's s/he coming from?" sort of questions.
So all in all, there's no need to be an academic. But if you're not, stress enough your industry affiliation!
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Technically, Maurice is right. You really don't *have* to be in academia to publish (even in academic journals). One famous example is <NAME> ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s#Career> ), who I believe had no affiliation (at least in practice) for much of his life. However, **most cultures have certain standard ways of doing things**. Academia, and in particular the part of it that you want publish in, is no exception.
One thing you can do to help get your ideas accepted is to **learn to write and talk in the language common to your research area**. Specifically, find some papers in your area that you really like (even better if they are widely cited) and study how they are written. When you write your own papers, make a conscious effort to **copy the writing style** of the papers you like. One key part of this is to thoroughly know the relevant literature (previous work on the problem) and to mention it in your introduction and explain how your work relates to it. For each research area, there are numerous other hurdles you should jump. For example, if you're writing a math paper, do it in LaTeX. If you don't know LaTeX, learn it (ask Google, if you need help), since using it will make your paper more readily accepted. For a list of other criteria often used by mathematicians to quickly judge a paper, read <http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304> .
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: Theoretically yes not but this is generally difficult, as requirements for the article will be higher and chances to prepare it really well are lower.
I would suggest to cooperate with some scientific institution that may also give good ideas how to improve the article. Maybe some extra experiments could be done using resources of that university. Or, if you represent a company, maybe a shared grant can be written getting more money for your project.
Also, unless you have experience in writing the scientific paper, it is very difficult to put everything into required structure, provide reasonable introduction with all necessary references and the like. A university professor can do this much easier as he does all the time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The [Ronin Institute](http://ronininstitute.org/mission/) aims to facilitate precisely this type of independent scholarship. Its members include a number of very accomplished scholars who not do have university appointments yet publish regularly in top journals. Doubtless this is not the easiest route, but it clearly is not impossible either.
That said, the original question suggests that the researcher in question has a bachelor's degree but no PhD. In general, publishing from this position (with a bachelor's degree) would be more difficult than it would for a PhD who has left academia because the PhD would have had extensive immersion in academic culture and the experience in scholarly writing that comes with it.
Similar institutes are listed [here](http://ronininstitute.org/fellow-travelers/).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Not necessarily. You can publish with your name only. In fact the value of the work is judged mainly by the readers who are the end users, and if you believe you can add something meaningful to the knowledge then go for it.
From my own experience, some universities take advantage of having their name thrown in while they provide little support to the work produced. Go for it and best of luck
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: In theory, no. There's though a practical implication that you will have to pay the publication costs from your own money. For example, if your paper is accepted to a conference, you'll have to pay the participation fee and then actually travel there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: >
> Does one need to be part of a university or a learning institution to publish papers?
>
>
>
No, one doesn't. If your company is unrelated to your submission, it might be even wrong to put its name on it. However there is a practical aspect: providing the editor or the PC with the affiliation tells them a potential source of the conflicts of interest (COI). In other words, finding a reviewer without COI might get easier for them if the affiliation is listed. It is in your interest to support their work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: **In principle no, but...**
In my field of study, you **do** have to declare some affiliation as an author. Publishers are claiming their submission system needs *some* official affiliation. A friend of mine was a senior co-author on one of my papers, and yet he holds no official degree (a renowned part-time investigator working as an architect). He opted to declare an institution within which he had many friends, and the editor was happy enough.
I believe however any official institution will do, even if not academic (e.g. Ministry for Environment, some private company).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Interesting question. You do not have to be affiliated to a university to publish papers, however, your paper will most likely be reviewed by (early) academics. They will judge your work according to their academic standards.
I am currently doing a PhD next to my work in public-private sector. I use a university affiliation when I publish. The interesting part is that often reviewers consider my (generalised) research questions and case studies to be unrealistic or non-relevant, while in fact they are directly obtained from my work and relevant.
On the other hand, if I stress the practical part (applied science), reviewers tend to judge my work as not novel (or should be well known) while my contributions are a novel application of scientific methods in practice.
In my modest experience it is difficult to bridge a gap between science and practice in publishing. Of course it also depends on the type of journal and its reviewers. It is not impossible. I am making progress.
In one of the answers is suggested to stress your industry affiliation. The author may be right. Reviewers may use different standards, or an editor may select reviewers with industry experience. I have not yet tried that approach.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Some preprint services, such as [MindRxiv](https://mindrxiv.org/discover), require you to have an affiliation with an institute to submit.
Upvotes: 0 |
Subsets and Splits