date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2012/08/28 | 917 | 3,443 | <issue_start>username_0: This seems like a silly question, but I can't find a clear answer online. If Dr. Brainiac's Big Book of Science was first published in 1974, but I have the second edition, published in 1996, should I cite it as (Brainiac, 1974) or (Brainiac, 1996)?
I realise that this is the sort of thing that might come down to the policy of the journal, but it happens that the journal I'm submitting to doesn't offer any specific guidelines on this particular topic, so I was wondering what the standard practice is, if there is one.
**edit:** for clarity, of course I would mention in the references section that I was referring to the second edition. I guess it would look something like this:
Brainiac, Q. Big Book of Science. Aperture publishing, 1974. (2nd edition 1996.)
or
Brainiac, Q. Big Book of Science, 2nd edition. Aperture publishing, 1996. (First published 1974.)
Where in the first case the in-text citation should be (Brainiac, 1974), and in the second it would be (Brainiac, 1996). The question is which of these is considered the best, or at least the most usual, way of doing it. In my particular case I'm citing a specific fact that is almost certainly in both editions, but of course I can't be sure.<issue_comment>username_1: In this case I would say *Be Honest*: only cite the references that you have read. Even if you have read the "rev 1", you might be (wrongly) citing as "rev 2" a sentence from "rev 1" that was removed in "rev 2"...
It might be obvious, but sloppy mistakes like that happen
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is always best and safest to cite the sources you've *actually* used.
If there are two (or more editions) of a book, you generally don't have a complete list of changes from one version to the next. The relevant information might not be in the first edition, or might be outdated from the one you've used. So: use the edition you've actually read.
This is also true if you've *used* an eprint on the arXiv, but you later find out that it is published (or will be published) in a journal: still use the arXiv reference.
This is subtle: the eprint wasn't ever peer reviewed, and thus is a less authoritative source. Your wording should *always* reflect that. If then the e-print is published in a journal, and you *only* change the reference it's like saying **you don't care about peer review**. It occurs all too often, but it's simply bad science, even if the contents of the two is word-for-word the same. If you change the reference, re-write the relevant sections as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If the journal uses the American Psychological Association (APA) style, then you cite the year of the edition and you do not mention earlier editions.
For example, if you are using the 4th edition (published in 1994) of the APA publication manual, you would cite it as (American Psychological Association, 1994) and its bibliographic entry would be:
American Psychological Association. (1994). *Publication manual of the American Psychological Association* (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I believe that the best option is citing the edition you actually used for two reasons: 1- It's more honest (since you're not citing something that maybe you didn't really read); and 2- In some cases the original text may have been revised in a way that may contradict your text.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/28 | 485 | 2,005 | <issue_start>username_0: I just visited a [conference website](http://icml.cc/2012/call-for-papers/) where organizers, for the submitted paper review process, listed a date for paper submission, a date for **"author response"**, and another date for **"author notification"**.
It's the first time I see this double wording.
I suppose that "author notification" is when they communicate to authors if their papers have been accepted or not, but **what does "author response" stand for**?
Thanks<issue_comment>username_1: I assume that during this period you can respond to any questions or criticisms raised during the review of the paper. After this round of feedback the final decisions will be made.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It has to be a conference with a *rebuttal* phase, where the authors can answer the main points raised by the reviewers, who in turn will be able to draw more conclusive remarks on the paper itself
see also here: <http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/blind.html>
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: As username_2 and Pieter said, there is a rebuttal phase in the reviewing process (last paragraph of the CfP).
>
> The review process this year incorporates several improvements. Authors, reviewers, and area chairs indicate subject areas. With the help of these subject areas, area chairs and reviewers bid for papers. A first reviewer for each paper will be selected from those bids. New this year, two area chairs will also be assigned to oversee reviewing of each paper. Each area chair will manually appoint an additional reviewer for each paper using input from the bids. Authors will have the opportunity to see and respond to the reviews (and optionally revise their paper) before a final decision is made. Final decisions will be made using the input from all reviewers, the author feedback, the area chairs, and the program chairs. Reviewing for ICML 2012 is double blind between authors and reviewers.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/08/28 | 1,428 | 6,117 | <issue_start>username_0: I've started narrowing down the scope of my dissertation, and I have one year before I need to defend my proposal. I'm curious to know what is expected from a dissertation proposal. What are the key elements that I should include / exclude? What criteria typically used to judge whether the proposal defense is successful? Are the committee's feedback of the proposal typically used as a criteria for the full fledged dissertation defense?<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately, **your committee has total say about what constitutes a successful thesis proposal**. As JeffE mentioned, you should **ask them** (particularly your chair). In my case, I scheduled short meetings (10-20 minutes) with each of my committee members. (Ideally, this should happen at least 3 before your proposal.) I asked each one **"What are you looking for in my thesis [proposal] for you to judge it as successful?"** I don't remember all of their answers. From three of the four members of my committee (including my chair) I had clear expectations, which I knew I could meet.
Sadly, from one member, I never really got a clear answer. Not surprisingly (in retrospect), part way through my presentation he complained because he thought that what I was presenting was off-topic. In the end, everything was okay. However, I think he was a bit unhappy and had to be *persuaded* to pass me. The **single most important thing you can do to guarantee a successful proposal (or defense) is to make sure that your chair will strongly support you if you get resistance from another committee member**. Besides that, you should schedule meetings (as I mentioned above) to ask what your committee is looking for. Start with your chair and get advice from him/her about how to approach your other members. If you don't get a good answer from one member, try scheduling another meeting to ask again (perhaps after meeting with your chair a second time to ask for help on how to approach the troublesome member).
Edited to account for EnergyNumber's comment. My own experience (mentioned above) was actually with my thesis defense, but I think the advice applies equally well to a thesis proposal, so I've edited my answer to address that (since it was the subject of the question).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: JeffE is correct; talk to your chair and get feedback. That being said, you'll want to include the following in your talk:
1. An overview of your research topic
2. A discussion of relevant literature (to demonstrate that you've researched the topic)
3. A discussion of your specific problem
4. Another literature discussion, much more focused on your specific problem
5. Any preliminary results of experiments you may have run, if any
6. What you plan on doing for the next few years
7. *(Possibly most important)* Any specific issues/problems that your advisors have raised about your research. You should specifically address these to show that you're paying attention to what they say and that you listen to their comments.
The best way to prepare is to talk with everyone in advance and find out what their objections/comments/issues/questions will be as much as possible, and then do your best to prepare for that and any related issues. If that sounds like a lot of work, it's because it is a lot of work.
Dan's comments are also spot on; you may have some very difficult committee members who will ask all sorts of questions, and you should make sure your advisor is on your side from the get-go.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> What are the key elements that I should include / exclude?
>
>
>
Your university should have clear regulations about that. Also, ask your supervisor/advisor.
>
> What criteria typically used to judge whether the proposal defense is successful?
>
>
>
So, I'll list a few that should be generally applicable, but if your supervisor feels confident to have you submit your proposal, it's likely you've already met the criteria or close enough to doing so. While the committee can reject your proposal, this isn't like an exam at the end of a course; if you do your work seriously up to the proposal you should pass without surprises. In fact, the defense of the proposal is an opportunity to get useful feedback and guidance.
A few general criteria I believe are always applicable:
* **Novelty** - It must be something that hasn't done before, more than a rehash of existing work. This could be in terms of the results (discovering something we didn't know, creating/manufacturing something which had not previously been attainable) or the methods (e.g. using a novel technique to prove an important mathematical theorem).
* **Relevance** - Your work on efficient separation of mud cakes by the time spent in the sun might not be useful to anyone even if it's novel. This criterion may degenerate into "fashionability" - hopefully not.
* **Expected breadth of work** - The research should involve enough work to be significant but not too much as to risk you not concluding it even with reasonable diligence. Of course, you might eventually be able to get it all done in a week if you're a genius and it's theory rather than experiments; but that's not likely.
* **Your background** - Is it reasonable to assume you personally will be able to carry out this kind of research?
* **Means and environment** - are your supervisor, research group, faculty, university and related facilities and resources likely to be sufficient support for you to pursue your line of research effectively?
>
> Are the committee's feedback of the proposal typically used as a criteria for the full fledged dissertation defense?
>
>
>
So that really depends on your field and on the composition of the committee. Very often the answer is "no" (from my own personal experience it was "not at all"), but it's certainly possible.
Note, however, that if your results get published in journals and conferences, the final dissertation is, again, unlikely to be rejected - since the community will already have recognized your contribution.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/28 | 645 | 2,795 | <issue_start>username_0: As a young academic, I am struggling to set up a research group that produces papers or proposals on a regular and sustainable basis. I had my share of PhD students, but nothing structured in a proper group or centre. I am also aware that when an academic starts collaborating with others, s/he sooner or later realises that several skills are needed to achieve a quality submission, and that not everyone can excel in all the needed skills.
What type of skills are needed in a cohesive academic group or research centre?<issue_comment>username_1: **Coherent research focus**:
Try to make sure that the members of your group work on topics that are close together, to create synergy between topics and allow experienced members to work closely with less experienced ones to allow their skills to pass on and build an environment where internal collaboration is the norm.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I try to only work with people who are capable of excelling in all the skills needed to perform and write up high-quality research.
That's not to say that some of them (particularly students) won't need training in those skills in order to excel, of course. But I definitely don't believe in having 1 guy who only collects data, 1 who only analyzes data, and 1 who only writes (or some such scheme). If you pursue such a scheme, you may be crippling people. They'll likely have a hard time in their next job, when nobody holds their hand through the other parts.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **Setting goals**: As a PI, you need some skills on top of the obvious (like writing grants). One important skill involves setting goals. You need to be able to set reasonable and attainable (but not necessarily easy) short-term goals for your group. At the same time, you need to be able to clearly articulate the overarching long-term, big-picture goals of your research. Good goal setting will help you attract capable researchers to your group.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Some team-related skills:
* **Interviewing**. You have to build your own team, and that team has to fit together very well. Given that your research group will likely be small and that your work can be measured in years, a few mistakes here can be very costly to your ability to produce. Be sure you know who you're bringing in, whether you can work with them, and whether when they can work with the rest of your group.
* **Delegation**. There's an art to knowing what to delegate and what to do yourself. This will vary from researcher to researcher, and from one graduate student/postdoc/lab technician to the next. Make sure you don't give someone more than they can handle, and make sure that each person has enough to keep them busy.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/08/29 | 932 | 3,842 | <issue_start>username_0: My speciality is statistics. I'm contemplating a PhD.
If I do a Masters first, that might take a different amount of time to reach the completion of my PhD from now, than if I just got a bachelors and then progress to the doctorate.
What factors would affect that?<issue_comment>username_1: The answer, as oft seems true on this site, is that it depends. I'll lay out a couple things that might change how long a PhD might take, and where coming in with a Masters or Bachelors might change that.
* **Is there a large course sequence?** And will your department accept previous coursework? If there's many classes to take at the graduate level *and* your PhD university accepts the classes from your Masters, having obtained an MS would likely trim the time from enrollment to PhD compared to a student with a bachelors degree starting at the same time. However, if the department *doesn't* accept those courses (and many good programs might not) then you're not necessarily all that far ahread.
* **Is it easier to get funding?** If your department treats students who have not yet gotten their MS (in a sequence where the path from bachelors to PhD also involves getting an MS midstream) as transient and less likely to be funded, you might find yourself distracted and pulled in the direction of "rent needs to get paid" more than a better funded student.
* **Your Dissertation**. Want to know what makes a PhD take X amount of time? By and large, its how fast your dissertation gets done. How quickly that happens has, in my experience, far more to do with how long a program takes then what letters you have after your name coming in.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends on whether you are in the UK or the USA (or another country). The system is different in the UK in several ways.
**1) You might get a "discount" on your PhD length if you have a masters in the same department.**
I am not sure about other universities but for Oxford and Cambridge, many of their masters (or "MPhil"s) are meant to be the first year (or first two years) of the PhD program. A PhD usually takes 3-4 years in the UK, but if you continued directly from such a masters, it can be reduced to two years.
**2) Your masters dissertation might count as your PhD project.**
It depends on the department but at least for mathematics, there are people who use their master's dissertation in place of the first year of the PhD. Once again, I am unfamiliar with universities outside of Oxbridge. But at Oxbridge, the first year is usually spent putting together an in-depth research proposal outlining research goals, literature, and methodology. Then, students go through a "transfer of status" where their proposal is evaluated and green lighted as PhD dissertation. I suppose this is similar to qualifying exams in the USA, minus the coursework.
But if you have done all these during your master's, and the department thinks your master's dissertation is of sufficient quality, then it can count as your transfer and save you a year.
**3) The research experience saves you time.**
This applies to both the US and UK. It can take some time to pick up various research skills. Master's programs with a significant research component that allows you to pick up these skills can help save time. Sometimes, A LOT of time.
**For the USA:**
In the USA, based on what I have read (so far) on the websites of various mathematics departments, all PhD students have to go through coursework and obtain an M.S., regardless of whether they have a masters degree. This policy need not be universal. I suppose the best thing to do is to email the departments that you are interested in and ask about their policy.
**P.S.** I recently completed a master's degree in the UK and am applying to USA departments for PhD.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/08/29 | 896 | 3,623 | <issue_start>username_0: >
> Short background: I started my PhD last November and now I am helping a master student writing his MSc thesis. I still have problems when I need to formulate a concise research question and even, at least in workshop papers, some publications fail in formulating clear research questions as well.
>
>
> The topic the CS student writes about is the following. There is [this work by Bracha](http://www.bracha.org/pluggable-types.pdf) on pluggable / optional type systems, e.g. for scripting languages. The student wants to solve the same problem that these 'pluggable typesystem' solves. But he is using dependent-type theory, i.e., to check that values in the scripting language are valid according to a given type. This can solve (or better solve) problems related to scripting languages (e.g. security problems in web programming; because everything is basically a string in scripting languages).
>
>
>
I find it hard to come up with a concise research question. (And possibly also with a method to evaluate the approach).
So, my question is:
* Are there any references that can help me to formulate valid research
questions?
The closest reference I have found is [this mini-tutorial](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=776925) by <NAME>.
From Germany there is also a [Memorandum](http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/journal/v20/n1/full/ejis201055a.html) that is interesting, but the focus is only on information systems research and not CS. (I can't find a link to the long version in either English or German yet.)
---<issue_comment>username_1: Have you tried the following:
>
> Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers. Chicago: University of
> Chicago, 1987. Print.
>
>
>
It's a very nice book and is applicable to CS (unlike many other research methodology books).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. Formulating good research problems comes from experience. If you understand an area well, you will see the fundamental concepts. From there, your problem statement is simply an articulation of these concepts. For a beginner, this is very hard. Advice: try to cut down the problems into sub-problems. Some will be easy, and some will be 'hard', and solving them means the rests become easy or open new doors. So construct a work breakdown structure (WBS).
2. Try to formalize the problem; i.e., derive a mathematical model for the problem at hand. This will help focus your mind on key concepts or variables. For example, for an optimization problem, you might decide on an objective function, and after that determine all relevant constraints. This will be an iterative process.
3. Start with a toy example, with as many assumptions that you need to make it a toy example. Then slowly generalize and once you have enough intuition, then formulate the key problem to be solved.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Problem formulation is crucial phase in the research process. It start from; what is known at certain point of time and what is gape/defect/uncertainty/challenge/weakness in existing knowledge/system/model/solution or answer to a quest. Also Problem formulation starts from thrust/quest/hunger for new knowledge/knowing to unknown or need for exploration/extension/enhancement of the existing knowledge at a point of time. Finally Problem formulation precisely needs to define and draft the statement of the weakness in aforementioned knowledge using crystal clear words with preferably directional hypothesis. In statement it should cover 1)what is required?, 2) desired inputs and outputs with desired features and inter-linkage.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/08/30 | 365 | 1,528 | <issue_start>username_0: Or, is it a good practice?
I found most papers that I read are "block by block": they have paragraphs that are not so long, and not so short. Is it a convention? Should I mimic that?<issue_comment>username_1: If the result reads like a newspaper, I would say, no, it's not alright.
If it reads like [Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus), then you are probably doing something right.
Unless you are an exceptional writer, my advice is to follow the accepted conventions of your field, which probably includes block paragraphs.
A longer paragraph allows one to build up an idea and explore it more thoroughly. The first sentence introduces the idea. Subsequent sentences explore it in more detail. There should be a logical connection between sentences, and sentences should ideally vary in length. Developing good style is matter of practice and reflection. And there is more to good style than the length of a paragraph.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The Wikipedia article on [paragraph](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph) says a para could contain one or more sentences. The very purpose of grouping content into paragraphs is to organise similar thoughts into one unit. Too many small or one-sentence paragraphs will affect the cohesiveness of your content.
But a one-sentence para may be fine at the end of a section in a paper if it adequately summarises the content within. (Like this, perhaps!)
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/08/31 | 2,623 | 10,378 | <issue_start>username_0: What office package is good for academic writing purpose? These three are the most popular for a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) style rich text editor.
PS: Avoid LateX reference please. This question is for lazy writers like me who wants to write rapidly and with ease!<issue_comment>username_1: all the major conferences and journals provide *templates* to use in order to format properly a submission, and they are circulated mostly in doc (Microsoft) and tex (LaTex) formats.
That said, LibreOffice and OpenOffice are mostly identical, but they're divided by a large political/philosophical diatribe (see [here](https://askubuntu.com/questions/141701/what-is-the-difference-between-libre-office-and-open-office-what-are-the-advan)). Generally Libre-/OpenOffice can open the doc templates without problems, but they tend to loose some formatting against the latest docx format (see [here](http://www.techbroil.com/2012/02/libreoffice-docx-support-is-terrible.html)), and they sometimes "break" the docx files that coauthors give back to LibreOffice users (like in [here](http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/msg16773.html))
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The answer depends a lot on one's field of work, where the end product will appear, whether the collaborator's mutually agree upon the package and finally the OS one use.
Most journals or conferences accept manuscripts in `DOC` or `DOCX` format; other than `TeX`. Native formats of *OpenOffice* or *LibreOffice* are not [always] supported in most DTP centres/print or publishing houses.
Say, for example if you are in Science; esp in Physics or Mathematics, most of your academic writing will have lot of equations. In that case it better to opt for MS Office (along with MathType). This is because the equation editor that comes with OpenOffice or LibreOffice is not compatible with MS Office and vice versa. The equation either get converted as a figure or appear scrambled when opened in a non-native package.
If the collaborator uses a different package, compatibility is a big problem.
If one has to work in different OS's; compatibility issues comes in there as well. For e.g. MS Office cannot function natively on Linux systems.
So considering the fact that *the academic work always reach a different kind of post-processing mechanism, it is better to use the most popular package*, MS Office.
If typesetting and publishing are done by self/in-house, compatibility is not an issue and any package is as good as any other package.
(As question is about three specific office packages, references to `LaTeX` is avoided; which may be the best choice, irrespective of one's field of work/typesetting environment as @marc-van-dongen has already pointed out.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If you are in a field with lots of equations, the journals you are going to publish in will almost certainly take .tex. So write in LaTeX. Otherwise you will not be writing your equations rapidly or with ease (compared to those who know LaTeX)\*. Use a front end like LyX if you want some WYSIWYGness.
If you are in any non-equation-heavy field, use MS Office, for the simple reason that every journal takes .doc files and only some take other formats. OpenOffice and LibreOffice are not yet compatible enough for publication-quality work. (I have tried repeatedly.) It's not that OpenOffice/LibreOffice can't do the right thing, it's that the journals only support Word. And so either your manuscript will be full of errors that you have to hope you will catch and correct when you get page proofs, or you will have to end up using Word anyway. Kind of sad, but that's the way things are (and have been for the past decade).
\*Once you know LaTeX, *everything* is faster and easier, especially because you can save old solutions for formatting, shortcut macros, etc. etc., and import them with a cut and paste. But it does take a non-negligible amount of time to learn, so if you're too impatient to learn new skills or under a very tight time deadline right now, LaTeX is not for you. Unless you're doing equations--LaTeX still does those enough better that you may as well just use it regardless.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: If you really don't want to have LaTeX, then also [GoogleDocs](https://docs.google.com) may be an option. It has a big advantage, when it comes to collaboration (even for real-time; no problems with mismatching versions of editors, no problems with "which version is the most recent?" or "where (s)he made the changes?").
But also you might consider [LyX](http://www.lyx.org/):
>
> LyX is a document processor that encourages an approach to writing based on the structure of your documents (WYSIWYM) and not simply their appearance (WYSIWYG).
>
>
> LyX combines the power and flexibility of TeX/LaTeX with the ease of use of a graphical interface.
>
>
>
So, in short, you can at the same time write in the way you are used to (without learning anything just to start) and use benefits of LaTeX (formatting, bibliography (!), formulas (!)).
Quite a few of my friends started their adventure with LaTeX with LyX.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I am surprised no one mentioned reStructured text ([here](http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html), [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReStructured_Text)). This is a markup syntax where you can write your paper using pure text only. It also support math, automatic conversion to both LaTeX and PDF, and rendering on web pages. Check it out!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: I would highly recommend using a LaTeX whenever possible or Lyx. For Lyx you can also export to LaTex. A recent submission actually only accepted word, but that is not a problem if you start in Lyx or LaTeX. You can export for Lyx to Tex. I have found that if I do need to move to Word for submission or having someone help with editing, I can take the LaTeX/Tex file and use a converter (there are a lot you can try, here is an [open source one on SF](http://sourceforge.net/projects/latex2rtf/)) to get RTF which will open in Word just fine.
There are also other editors, Such as [Scientific Workplace](http://www.mackichan.com/index.html?products/swp.html~mainFrame) which are more geared towards technical writing.
Another thing you may want to consider is using something very simple like Markdown with some extension for citations and the such. Here are some related links:
* [Academic writing extensions to Markdown‘mandown’](http://mandown.rubyforge.org/)
* [Writing and Footnotes in Markdown](http://fieldnoise.com/2012/08/14/the-digital-dissertator-writing-footnoting-markdown/)
* [Pandoc](http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/README.html#pandocs-markdown)
You may also want to check out this [Stack Overflow question on WYSIWYG vs WYSIWYM](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1086797/wysiwyg-vs-wysiwym)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As username_5 said, there are other ways of producting documents. I personnally use **[org-mode](http://org-mode.org)**. There are saveral reasons :
* The document you type can be **exported into another formats**, including **HTML, OpenDocument (LibreOffice / OpenOffice), or LaTeX**. In that way, your can publish your document without restriction.
* This language is **much easier than LaTeX**, and you can write directly in plain text.
* As you write in plain text, **any editor can fit** (even though Emacs has the org-mode by default).
* As you write in plain text, **an editor in wide screen prevents you from disturbances** (and this is a main point).
* With the references system, you can also write **notes and outlines** in separate files, **as in Scrivener** for example.
* The syntax for tables, pictures and links is simple, so you shall write **the whole book in org-mode, then export it directly**. Few processing may be necessary then, you only have to set your environment in LibreOffice or LaTeX.
When I tried that, I enjoyed it at once :-)
**Note :** Of course ReStructuredText and Markdown can export to HTML, ODT and LaTeX, but I prefer Org-Mode for its flexibility.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Preamble
========
I wrote my master's report in Microsoft word.
Then I moved on to better environments -- I wrote my PhD dissertation in latex.
My take on which to use: MS Word/Libreoffice
============================================
If you are short on time and are fine with sleepless nights, definitely go for Microsoft word. However, if you have lots of equations in your work, MSWord will just make it look very unprofessional and ugly (but may still be acceptable by your committee).
Your grad school may have "how to do it" videos for MS Word. Have you checked with them to see if they have appropriate templates/packages for MS Word? What does the majority of you group use? If you are short on time, do what is tried and tested, do stuff that you have help readily available for (peers, adviser etc.)
Advantages of using LaTeX (I had to provide it just for completion)
===================================================================
The other option (much harangued obviously [1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/3062/21), [2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/3084/21)) is LaTeX. It takes the strain out of writing as you have to only provide content and can concentrate on actually **writing** instead of spending a lot of time on formatting.
There is a world of difference with LaTeX far superior to Microsoft products, **for academic writing**. Yes, lots (don't quite have a number right now) of people still use MS Office. They write their theses/dissertations/reports, submit it for review to gradschool, it comes back with formatting corrections (even though they use templates provided by the gradschool). So then they spend countless sleepless hours jutting their images around.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: To add to the answers, I would definitely NOT use LibreOffice Writer. It is extremely unstable and my Bachelor student and a friend of mine writing his Master's thesis messed up their files completely last minute. The windows version crashes when a large PDF is to be generated.
I had to help my friend convert all the thesis to LaTeX last minute, which worked perfectly, and I'm using it right now to write my dissertation.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/31 | 1,415 | 5,804 | <issue_start>username_0: When writing papers, one specific problem is how to effectively organize the data we want to present so as to enable the audience and readers to quickly understand what we want to demonstrate.
I've browsed a very good book before which shows you how to draw figures and tables in academic papers in the "right approach" but seems I cannot remember its name.
If anyone has read any good book on this topic, please recommend their names.<issue_comment>username_1: Two really well presented and interesting books are in the well known O'Reilly collections:
1. [Beautiful Visualization Looking at Data through the Eyes of Experts](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920000617.do)
>
> Visualization is the graphic presentation of data -- portrayals meant to reveal complex information at a glance. Think of the familiar map of the New York City subway system, or a diagram of the human brain. Successful visualizations are beautiful not only for their aesthetic design, but also for elegant layers of detail that efficiently generate insight and new understanding.
>
>
> This book examines the methods of two dozen visualization experts who approach their projects from a variety of perspectives -- as artists, designers, commentators, scientists, analysts, statisticians, and more. Together they demonstrate how visualization can help us make sense of the world.
>
>
> Explore the importance of storytelling with a simple visualization exercise
> Learn how color conveys information that our brains recognize before we're fully aware of it
> Discover how the books we buy and the people we associate with reveal clues to our deeper selves
> Recognize a method to the madness of air travel with a visualization of civilian air traffic
> Find out how researchers investigate unknown phenomena, from initial sketches to published papers
>
>
>
1. [Beautiful Data The Stories Behind Elegant Data Solutions](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596157128.do)
>
> In this insightful book, you'll learn from the best data practitioners in the field just how wide-ranging -- and beautiful -- working with data can be. Join 39 contributors as they explain how they developed simple and elegant solutions on projects ranging from the Mars lander to a Radiohead video.
>
>
> With Beautiful Data, you will:
>
>
> Explore the opportunities and challenges involved in working with the vast number of datasets made available by the Web
> Learn how to visualize trends in urban crime, using maps and data mashups
> Discover the challenges of designing a data processing system that works within the constraints of space travel
> Learn how crowdsourcing and transparency have combined to advance the state of drug research
> Understand how new data can automatically trigger alerts when it matches or overlaps pre-existing data
> Learn about the massive infrastructure required to create, capture, and process DNA data
> That's only small sample of what you'll find in Beautiful Data. For anyone who handles data, this is a truly fascinating book.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The preeminent author on this topic is <NAME>, who wrote ["The Visual Display of Quantitative Information"](http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi). He has a few other books also available on his site (see previous link) that are worth checking out.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: A book I would recommend is Kosslyn's *[Graph Design for the Eye and Mind](http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/CognitivePsychology/?view=usa&ci=9780195311846)*. What I particularly like about this book is that all recommendations are based on scientific findings and are discussed as such:
>
> Graphs have become a fixture of everyday life, used in scientific and business publications, in magazines and newspapers, on television, on billboards, and even on cereal boxes. Nonetheless, surprisingly few graphs communicate effectively, and most graphs fail because they do not take into account the goals, needs, and abilities of the viewers. In Graph Design for Eye and Mind, <NAME> addresses these problems by presenting eight psychological principles for constructing effective graphs. Each principle is solidly rooted both in the scientific literature on how we perceive and comprehend graphs and in general facts about how our eyes and brains process visual information. Kosslyn then uses these eight psychological principles as the basis for hundreds of specific recommendations that serve as a concrete, step-by-step guide to deciding whether a graph is an appropriate display to use, choosing the correct type of graph for a specific type of data and message, and then constructing graphs that will be understood at a glance. Kosslyn also includes a complete review of the scientific literature on graph perception and comprehension, and appendices that provide a quick tutorial on basic statistics and a checklist for evaluating computer-graphics programs. Graph Design for Eye and Mind is an invaluable reference for anyone who uses visual displays to convey information in the sciences, humanities, and businesses such as finance, marketing, and advertising.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I'd recommend <NAME>andless's "[The Visual Miscellaneum](http://www.davidmccandless.com/books/)". The author does information visualization for The Guardian. This book is probably best for "wow, that was a great way of getting this information across visually!" It's a lot less academic than say, Tufte's work but a great tool nonetheless.
<NAME>'s "[Visualize This](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0470944889)" is a fantastic book that ranges from the "why" to the "how to implement."
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/08/31 | 463 | 2,029 | <issue_start>username_0: We are interviewing some candidates for a part-time teaching faculty position to teach 2 upper level undergraduate courses in mathematics.
Since it is my first time to be in such committee and since this is a teaching job on the university level, I wanted to know what are the criteria/questions that are teaching-related and that should be asked to the candidate in the interview?<issue_comment>username_1: You'll want to ask some standard questions that any experienced educator would ask a potential teacher:
* Request to see a model lesson. It doesn't have to be a full lecture, just something to see their style. Ideally the entire committee should be there for this part.
* Ask to see a university-level lesson plan of their creation.
* Ask how they would approach creating a semester-long curriculum for an advanced "special topics" course. I suggest the "special topics" idea because this lets you see whether they can do it for themselves or whether they are only able to follow pre-set curricula.
* Ask how they'll ensure that the top students are being adequately challenged while the weaker students aren't being left behind.
* Ask how they handle unruly students. Even though this is fairly rare at the university level, they should have a ready answer.
* Have them explain some concepts to you and make sure for yourself that you are comfortable with how they explain them. (Similar to model lesson, but for specific topics.)
You may also want to mention things like office hours requirements, whether they'll get a TA, and related administrative stuff.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: My university requires a teaching portfolio to be attached to the job application. This will typically include:
* Teaching practice (your education, courses)
* History of teaching (activities, awards)
* Student feedback (with comments on how did your teaching chanre as a response to these comments)
* Materials you prepared for students (with comments on how and why they evolved)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/01 | 808 | 3,516 | <issue_start>username_0: Publishing in a journal is a long process that might take a lot of time (> 1 year), and is possibly involved of several phases (submit, re-submit, re-re-submit...)
As the time passes, things change. Specifically, new results appear.
What should one do with the new stuff that happens between resubmissions?
* Do one needs to cite / refer to papers that first appeared after the original date submission?
* Do one needs to update citations to papers that on the date of the original submission appeared only on arXiv, but now appear in a journal (those possibly slightly different than the original work cited in the original submission)?
**EDIT:**
maybe one should wait for acceptance, and only then do the updates?<issue_comment>username_1: Would like to add a partial answer. Don't know the answer to the first one.
But about the second:
>
> Do one needs to update citations to papers .....?
>
>
>
Yes, they need to be updated. Most publishers ask to update bibliography with latest information.
But if the original content that appeared in arXiv is changed in the final publication, it is better to keep the original citation in your paper, specifying the exact version that you cited.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The answer to both of these questions is **it's your choice**. However, I definitely **recommend that you update the citation information**, because (a) it probably won't take long and (b) it will possibly be quite helpful to your readers.
I work in a field where it's uncommon for much to change between the time that I first submit and that I resubmit. Perhaps I might find out that someone proved a result in our paper about the same time that we did. In that case, I would add a line in the acknowledgments section stating so, and add a citation to the relevant paper or preprint.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: **Yes, you should update your references at *every* possible opportunity.** Whenever the manuscript is in your hands, if it is possible for you to update the references, you should do so. Paper rejected? Update the references before resubmission. Paper accepted? Update the references before sending back the revision. Multiple rounds of reviewing? Update the references after each round. Submitting a journal version of a conference paper? Update the references before submission. Reviewing galley proofs? Okay, then you probably *can't* update the references.
Your paper serves as not only a description of *your* new result but also as a guide to the surrounding literature. Your readers (including referees and editors) are best served by the most up-to-date snapshot possible.
Of course, if one of the papers you cite has undergone a revision (for example, and ArXiv preprint has appeared in a journal), *you must read the new revision yourself* to make sure that the cited information is still there, so that you know *how* to appropriately cite it.
I typically tag completely new references (for example, a relevant ArXiv preprint appears while my paper is under review) with phrases like "Since this paper was submitted..." or (since I'm in computer science) "Since the preliminary version of this paper appeared...."
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Might some of the reviewers have published the relevant paper(s) that have come out and which you are not citing? Yes? Might they appreciate it if you cite rather than ignore their work? Yes? Better update your citations, then.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/02 | 1,073 | 3,804 | <issue_start>username_0: I am trying to find a way to search for all the citations contained in an article. What I want to do is create a workflow for my research where:
1. I have a pool of articles that I have already read.
2. I want to find a new article to read, based on this pool of articles, so I find all the citations of all the read articles and calculate the most cited article, which is the next article I should read (obviously skipping articles that I have already read).
But I have been unable to find a way to automatically download all of the citations of a specific article. Is there no way to do it? even payed?<issue_comment>username_1: There seems to be no service or tool that let's you download articles in bulk. This is probably so because most journals *do have zero tolerance* for bulk/automated downloads. **Automated downloads are some times (may be most of the times) an attempt to infringe the copyrights.**
For example, [ACM Digital Library ToS](http://librarians.acm.org/policies) has this restriction.
>
> **Under no circumstances are the following actions permitted:**
>
>
> * Using scripts or spiders to automatically download articles or harvest metadata from the ACM Digital Library. This activity is a serious violation of ACM’s DL usage policy and will result in the temporary or permanent termination of download rights for the subscribing institution.
>
>
>
That being said, irrespective of the field of research, here are some services (free and paid) that offers you a list of citations / *cited by* articles (other than the journal's webpage for the article).
* [CrossRef](http://www.crossref.org/) (some services are paid ones)
* [Web of Science](http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/) (Paid)
* [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com/) (Free)
* [NASA ADS](http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/) (for astronomy and allied fields. Free)
While [ACM](http://dl.acm.org/) provide free *Cited by* list, [IEEE](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp) provides this for subscribers/members.
Also please note, [from NASA ADS FAQ](http://doc.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs_doc/faq.html)
>
> In addition, references may be incomplete due to our inability to
> match them with 100% accuracy (e.g. in press, private communications,
> author errors, some conference series, etc.). Anyone using the
> citations for analysis of publishing records should keep this in mind.
>
>
>
which is true for any citation / *Cited by* lists.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: PubMedCentral gives you full text and their API may be able to do it.
But getting all article PMIDs which are cited by paper X is the necessary step for that and this is hard - I don't think thre is a service..
Unless you parse the full text yourself using your own code.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: It seems that crossref.org is beginning to roll out providing a list of citations (the works that a given work cites):
<https://www.crossref.org/blog/distributing-references-via-crossref/>
[See the aptly named section "OMG! OMG! OMG! Does this mean I can get references from api.crossref.org?"]
Using the example doi from the above link (doi:10.7554/eLife.10288), you could obtain the list of citations in that work at: <https://api.crossref.org/v1/works/10.7554/eLife.10288.xml>
Alternatively, with [content negotiation](https://citation.crosscite.org/docs.html), you could just use:
```
curl -L -H "Accept: application/vnd.crossref.unixsd+xml" \
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10288 > data.xml
```
The citations are listed in the element.
Warning: The citation data is, according to the link above, only available in the XML, not the JSON, representation. Also, the service is not available for all works, yet.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/03 | 397 | 1,697 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been in a tenure-track position for 3 years and am going back on the job market. Would I be expected to "explain" why I am leaving, especially when it is pre-tenure? I suspect that a search committee might think I'm leaving because I felt in danger of not receiving tenure -- that is not the case here. However, my reasons for leaving stem from a two-body problem that I'd prefer not to disclose until after an offer is made.
A more concrete way of asking: how should the application cover letter look different, coming from someone currently holding a faculty position compared to a newly minted PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: It's not uncommon for people to move because of two-body issues, and if you're not comfortable disclosing the specific reasons, one possibility is to mention (at interview time) that you have non-academic constraints that force your departure from a place that you like.
Having said that, you're not going to get an interview call unless you're a superstar and everyone wants you OR you have some positive argument for why you're interested in a particular university. So in your cover letter you'll at least need to provide some positive reasons.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just watched a friend do this, with a two body problem. His line: the place he was at was a good fit, tenure was all but assured, BUT he was convinced the place he was interviewing was enough a superior fit to consider a pre-tenure jump. He would always fall back to that line of flattery. He and his husband were hired, after the usual two body drama; meaningless counteroffers, offers of a later position opening, etc.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/04 | 958 | 4,042 | <issue_start>username_0: Although I am an active user of SE, I have chosen to remain anonymous because of the nature of this question. I am currently a graduate student at a university that lands in the mid 70s among U.S. News' top graduate schools in mathematics, which by my understanding is very poor. My grades were quite good and although I didn't do terrifically on the subject GRE, I had a few offers from schools in the mid 40 range which I turned down. This was partially because I think I undervalued the importance of choosing a better school, and for a variety of personal reasons. My university has some unique opportunities in applied math, but is otherwise unremarkable.
As I enter my second year, I am increasingly convinced that a career as an active research mathematician is what I want for myself. However, I've heard so much contradictory information that I'm unsure if this is a realistic goal given the status of my university. While a variety of people have told me that there are plenty of desirable jobs available in "industry," the general consensus is that graduate students from low-ranking schools tend to end up as community college professors. The fact that most universities (including my own) are full of doctors from strictly high ranking schools seems to support this.
I have the chance to receive a terminal masters at the end of this year, rather than continue on for another four and complete my PhD, so I'm considering trying to retake the GRE and reapplying (I am unclear whether this is frowned upon in the math community in general, although at my school I have been reassured it is not). On the other hand, my university has a few professors who seem to be well known within their niche, mainly because their particular specialties are very unique.
My general questions are these: How important is the quality of the university when it comes to having a full career in pure mathematics research? Is a well known adviser a factor, possibly outweighing the school? Is this significantly different among applied mathematicians?<issue_comment>username_1: My opinion, which is worth what you are paying for it:
The most important thing is the quality of your dissertation.
The second most important thing is the reputation of your thesis advisor.
The ranking of the department only comes in third.
Of course, these things are not independent of each other. It may be that at a higher-ranked department you'll get a better education and write a better thesis.
Probably best to speak to someone at your current institution (or your undergrad institution) who knows you well and can give you better advice.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: First, let me answer an easy question. It is **not frowned on to get a masters at one school, then transfer elsewhere for a Phd**. In fact, this is **often encouraged**. Next, let me confirm that **yes, the ranking of your PhD institution really does matter** for a future career as a research mathematician.
In some sense, Gerry is right when he says that the ranking of importance is (1) quality of dissertation, (2) reputation of adviser, and (3) ranking of department.
One big problem though, is that **many of the people evaluating you won't know how to evaluate criteria (1) and (2).** Hiring committees often include many (all?) people who are not familiar with your research area. So they will often rely on what they (at least think that they) know, which is *quality of department*.
I have [written elsewhere](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2709/college-vs-grad-school/2712#2712) about why you should go to the strongest program that you can get into, particularly if you want a career as a research mathematician.
I don't know all the details of your personal situation, but I strongly encourage you to at least take the GRE again and reapply. It may be possible for you to wait to see whether you get accepted to a school that you prefer before you decide whether you'll leave with a terminal masters or not.
Upvotes: 5 |
2012/09/04 | 2,043 | 7,970 | <issue_start>username_0: Today's world is electronic, there is vision of semantic web and yet we still submit references in numerous versions of various journals. In medicine, many journals have special rules about after how many authors you can put et. al. etc etc.
It is tedious to reformat references (even with EndNote or other reference managers) to suit a particular journal.
Are there any pioneer journals or initiatives to simply stop submitting references and just list a DOI instead (if one exist), and to "traditional refences only if DOI does not exist.)
LATER EDIT: In fact, people already try to do the opposite - convert PDF into list of DOIs. <http://labs.crossref.org/pdfextract/>
LATER EDIT: The receiving journal, after getting the article, would expand the DOIs into traditional references in the exact format the journals wants the references in the print version. Different journals would expand the DOI as preferred. A service at <http://www.crossref.org/guestquery> can expand the DOI (e.g., 1136/bmj.d7373 into XML with info such as:
```
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?
BMJ
BMJ
0959-8138
1468-5833
01
03
2012
01
03
2011
344
jan03 1
Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study
<NAME>.
Prayle
<NAME>.
Hurley
<NAME>.
Smyth
01
03
2012
01
03
2012
d7373
d7373
bmj.d7373
10.1136/bmj.d7373
20120103162404
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.d7373
```<issue_comment>username_1: This is a horrible idea. DOIs are not meant for human consumption; bibliographies are.
**You *cannot* assume that your readers are always connected to the internet while reading your paper, even if that paper is published only electronically.** They might be reading a paper printout. They might be reading the paper on an airplane. They might be describing the results to students in a seminar, or to a colleague over the phone. The campus network might be down, or overloaded by students google-studying for finals. Their cellular data carrier might be unreliable.
Even so, the reader might have access to your cited papers by other means, like (gasp) the actual library. Or they might be interested in when your references were published, or in which venues, or by whom. Or they might want to track citations to other papers which are not identified by DOIs elsewhere. Or they might want the raw bibliographic information for some other reason which you and I can't think of, but which they've learned to expect because every other publication includes it.
tl;dr: Stop whining and just type the stupid page numbers already.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1 and Users 17670, but there's another fundamental reason why DOIs alone are problematic: they don't have enough redundancy to correct errors. If you have a typo in your DOI, then it will be very difficult to determine what you meant to refer to. Of course, most DOIs are copied and pasted, and it's not hard to check that they work by pasting them into <http://dx.doi.org>, so I'm sure the error rate would be very low. However, it would not be zero. (I once found a typo in the DOI listed on a publisher's web page. I have no idea how it got there, but it did.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It's not the horrible suggestion that many people seem to think it is -- there have been some complaints about miscounts in citation counts because of improper parsing of references; mostly because of some journals allowing non-standard abbreviations. (does `A&A` mean [Astronomy and Astrophysics](http://www.aanda.org/) or [Arts & Architecture](http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/)? Many citation parsers don't use the context and have alternate rules for what journal the citation came from.
This could also bring up some other problems -- if someone's published a pre-print in arXiv ... but the final publication which may be substantially different. Very few people cite the arXiv paper directly, but it might actually be more appropriate than citing the final published version in some circumstances. (although, it would also show that perhaps those portions that you're citing didn't stand up under peer-review); you couldn't cite the arXiv via DOI, only via [bibcode](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode).
...
Now, in most situations, the reference list for some journals is handled differently from the rest of the paper. In talking with the editor for [Solar Physics](http://www.springer.com/astronomy/astrophysics+and+astroparticles/journal/11207), when I talked to him regarding a proposal for [data citation](http://docs.virtualsolar.org/wiki/Citation), he mentioned that a problem was that giving a second URL to provide specifics would be an issue, and I believe he hinted that it was the publisher and not something locally developed.
Ideally, this whole thing would be integrated into the submission process, and then the reviewers would have the list expanded so that they can do their work. (and you'd probably want the submitter to verify the expansions) ... but this of course will take time from the publishers, who aren't exactly known to be nimble for the most part.
...
What I'd suggest, so that you can get the benefits that you want, without waiting for the journals to make any changes, is to look into [reference manager software](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software), which let you collect your references in a database, with notes, and can then generate a reference list using the appropriate format. I've heard good things about a number of them (but never had a need for this purpose (the ones I've used were for shared project bibliographies). I'd look to see which ones can generate whatever citation style is appropriate for the journal(s) you submit to, or ask around to see if any of the people you collaborate might use one (as using the same one could be of benefit when collaborating).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: People already see this as a problem and try to go from PDF to a list of DOIs. See the project here: <http://labs.crossref.org/pdfextract>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Personally, I try to "sneak in" DOIs into reference lists even if the journal's instructions are for short citation formats. Just as I try to sneak in the title of the paper.
* As reader and reviewer, I find it horrible to have no clue at all what the paper by <NAME> *et al.*, Some Jounal, 42, 5678-91 is about. Particularly, when seeking a particular kind of information. That is for the title.
* As reader and reviewer, I find it very convenient to just click on the link to get to the paper. So please, do not only spell out the DOI, but use its inherent hyperlinking capability.
* My experience is that broken citations are fairly common already with the traditional "Author, journal, volume, pages" format. Usually it is possible to arrive at the paper with some effort. Having the title is then the most useful information to get to the paper. Having only a DOI with typo pretty much prevents any possible correction.
* **Conclusion: I think both title and DOI are worth the additional ink.**
* Even if the journal insists on their more compressed format, I'd like to have at least the reviewers the benefit of immediately seeing what papers I refer to.
* I've never had a reviewer complaining about this information in the references.
* I'm using mostly biblatex, which makes it easy to automatically have both title and the DOI (already properly linked) output together with the rest of the information. No effort at all.
* I don't care if you prefer to store your literature database as DOI only, and expand the DOI list when writing the paper. However, personally I perfer to have a searchable base, and more meaningful citation keys (I use mostly AuthorYEAR Bibtex keys, for books the title), so I can remember them more easily when writing.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/04 | 1,443 | 5,177 | <issue_start>username_0: So, I've seen a really nice figure in a paper; what's the best way to 'get a copy'?
Will it be on the publisher's website?
Do I need to draw my own version?
Email the author?
And, finally, how does the answer vary for (a) those wishing to republish the figure in their own work, (b) those not wishing to publish the figure e.g. for student coursework.<issue_comment>username_1: Unless the paper is available under a very permissive license, such as [Creative Commons Attribution](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), you will need to seek permission. (There may be other legal possibilities, such as fair use or fair dealing, but that's a little subtle. See [this story](http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/04/26/is-reprinting-a-figure-fair-us/) for more information on that.)
The copyright owner is the person you need permission from. Who that is will generally be marked on the published paper (often it is the publisher, and sometimes the author). If the publisher holds the copyright, then it is still polite to ask permission from the authors as well, although this is not legally required.
Big commercial publishers will often have a department for dealing with this, typically with a name like "Permissions". If you can't find such a department, then you can try just writing to the journal in question (look at their web page to try to find e-mail addresses).
If you are lucky, they will quickly approve your use of the figure. If you are not lucky, they will ask for money.
>
> And, finally, how does the answer vary for (a) those wishing to republish the figure in their own work,
>
>
>
There are definitely legal issues here.
>
> (b) those not wishing to publish the figure e.g. for student coursework.
>
>
>
If you never make the work available to the public, then it is hard to imagine that the copyright owner will ever learn about it or complain (and they would look foolish if they tried to sue someone for using their figure in a homework assignment). However, you still have a moral obligation to cite the source of the figure.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the answer by @AnonymousMathematician, it's important to remember *how to cite a figure from another paper in your own*. This [link](https://web.archive.org/web/20171019090302/http://library.nmu.edu/guides/userguides/apacitingtables.htm) gives a good explanation on how to do so: for publications using the APA style guide, for instance, it should be in the format
**Figure #. Description/Note.** *Adapted from “Title of Article,” by <NAME> and <NAME>. Author, year,
Title of Journal, volume, p. xx. Copyright year by the Name of Copyright Holder. Adapted [or Reprinted] with
permission.*
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: In case some one wants IEEE-related answer (similar to what other responders have said), see page [17 of this IEEE presentation](http://www.ieee.org.sv/files/politicayetica.pdf):
>
> ### Reuse of Published Materials
>
>
> * You must cite and acknowledge any published materials that you make re-use of
>
>
> + Examples: Diagrams/figures from an existing
> paper
>
>
> - Extracted and re-used => must get permission from author/publisher (copyright owner) and cite and acknowledge
> - Redrawn with modifications => should cite and
> indicated “adapted from” or “based on”
> * This includes your own prior published work!
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The prestigious *American Institute of Physics* (AIP) has a FAQ page that is golden:
<https://publishing.aip.org/authors/author-permission-faq>
Answered questions include:
* When do I need permission to reuse material
* Must permission be in writing?
* How do I obtain permissions?
* What is a credit line and where does it go?
* What do I do with the permissions once I receive them?
Continuing with aeismail comment under username_2's answer,
>
> I edited this because different publishers have different guidelines.
> In some cases, you can say "Reprinted from Ref. XX with permission,"
> and the longer copyright notice isn't required. – aeismail
>
>
>
The AIP states the following:
>
> [...] The original publisher will provide you with their preferred wording
> for the credit line (in most cases). A credit line consisting only of
> “Used with permission” is not sufficient. An example of a typical
> complete credit line appears as:
>
>
> Reproduced with permission from J. Org. Chem. 63, 99 (1998). Copyright
> 1998 American Chemical Society.
>
>
> Note that even when reusing material in the public domain (for which
> obtaining permission does not apply), you must include an appropriate
> credit line, which states the original source. An example of an
> appropriate credit line for material in the public domain follows:
>
>
> Reprinted from <NAME> and <NAME>, Evaluation and
> Correlation of Steam Solubility Data for Salts and Minerals of
> Interest in the Power Industry, NIST Technical Note 1387 (U.S. GPO,
> Washington, DC, 1997).
>
>
> <https://publishing.aip.org/authors/author-permission-faq>
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/05 | 1,268 | 4,122 | <issue_start>username_0: Did anyone research the data about scientific productivity? I.e. what is the average number of articles written by author in a year in a specific field? I am referring to average, since this is maybe easiest to calculate, but it would be interesting to see the distribution data too. This of course depends on how many journals we want to scope, but I would be interested to see any data on say most popular fields like physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc (order is of no importance).<issue_comment>username_1: Though this is not a direct answer to your query, this hopes to lead to more productive / useful answers.
See this [Wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index), on Hirsch index or h-index that is a widely accepted measure of
>
> both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist
> or scholar.
>
>
>
The article also points to other indices on scientific/academic productivity and impact in the field.
The [SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ads_abstracts.html) provides a gateway to the online Astronomy and Physics literature. A new interface of the ADS provides a tool to visualize the author and paper networks; that tells you how productive the author is, quantified with the number of collaborators and papers produced.
For e.g. see this [link](http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/cgi-bin/topicSearch?q=Narlikar&qtype=NEW&db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=gr-qc); a search for the name **Narlikar**. On top of the resulting page, next to *Top 200 results*, you can see a drop-down menu, on which you can select various options like Author Network, Paper Network etc to get various visualizations.
You can contact the project personnels here <http://adsabs.harvard.edu/> . They do conduct studies on bibliographic data, which is one of the measure of academic productivity.
---
Update :
Here is a link to the articles that cite [<NAME>](http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full)'s article - *An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output*- on h-index via Google Scholar <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2F102%2F46%2F16569.abstract>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A comprehensive review was conducted in the field of [psychology](http://pss.sagepub.com/content/18/4/283.short) in relation to publication rates and tenure. There is also a "fun" review related to beer consumption and publication in the field of [avian evolutionary biology](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16551.x/full).
---
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01889.x
Psychological Science April 2007 vol. 18 no. 4 283-286
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Papers on coauthorship networks such as [Newman (2004)](http://www.pnas.org/content/101/suppl_1/5200.full) have the descriptive statistics on publication rates in different fields, e.g. publications per person per year.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: In the subject that I am familiar with, political science, there is a recent study using bibliometric data on patterns of publishing in journals - maybe this could be interesting (and might be similar to already mentioned work in other comments): <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/patterns-of-publishing-in-political-science-journals-an-overview-of-our-profession-using-bibliographic-data-and-a-coauthorship-network/D946105595ED2C314AE2A04138F7A5B6>
As the authors state:
>
> We drew on more than 67,000 papers published from 1990 to 2013 in one
> of today’s 96 core journals. The network consists of more than 40,000
> authors located worldwide.
>
>
>
and regarding your question, they find this:
>
> Whereas some are highly productive in terms of publications, the
> majority of authors published only a single paper, which suggests
> significant turnover in the community.
>
>
>
You should have a closer look at it (although polsci is not in your list of mentioned disciplines)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/05 | 1,205 | 5,006 | <issue_start>username_0: I have recently been receiving number of visits from "academic book buyers" that are looking to buy books that I no longer want. It is never stated outright but they seem to be looking mainly for evaluation copies of textbooks. At least 2 of the cards that I have been given indicate that they are "recycling" the books, although what this means is not clear.
Are these book buyers benefitting or exploiting academia?<issue_comment>username_1: There are good chances that they are selling the books back to students. Given the price of academic books, this is is the most profitable way of "recycling" a book.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would refrain from doing any business with these buyers, mainly because I find their solicitations annoying. I wouldn't want to encourage them to continue bothering me or my colleagues.
If you want to ask whether it is ethical to resell evaluation copies at all, start a new question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with username_1 that they are selling the books back to students. Then I think the economics works out as follows:
The faculty selling the books and the book buyers benefit a lot. The publishers stand to lose some money, since reselling the books hurts the market for new ones. They presumably pass some or all of this cost on to students through price increases, so the students also lose money in aggregate. Now the question becomes what price the books are being resold at. If they are resold cheaply (used book prices), then the students who buy the resold books benefit (they get near-new copies at cheap prices), at the expense of the other students. If the books are resold at new prices, then no students benefit.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Paper, printing, and binding (PPB) are typically a small fraction of the retail price of the book. It depends on a lot of factors, but as a ballpark figure, if you take the total cost of PPB for the nth edition of a big-selling 3-color college freshman textbook, and divide by the number of copies sold, it's probably ~$10, or ~ 1/10 of the ~$100 retail price.
Not only that, but the *incremental* price is even smaller. In traditional printing (not print on demand), printing costs are almost all setup costs. Once you have the print run going, the cost of producing one more book is nearly zero. Again, it depends on a lot of factors, but a ballpark figure would be about $1, or ~1% of the retail price.
This explains why publishers are seemingly so wasteful about sending out these unsolicited copies so indiscriminately to professors. It's not wasteful at all, because the incremental cost of printing a book is so low.
I always just pass the books on to students for free. This is good for the student who gets the book, and the money spent by the publisher to produce the book is so small that essentially no cost gets passed on to students. If I give it to a student, and the student then turns around and resells it, I think that's fine, too. It has the effect of undermining the *$&%^#*& evil publishers' exploitative pricing by helping to maintain a healthy market in used copies, while the nth edition is still in use. Part of their reprehensible scheme for maintaining exploitative prices is to kill off the used marked for edition n by rapidly bringing out edition n+1. The evaluation copy they send me might get out on the used market early enough to get some use before then.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I would say that these book buyers are legitimate from personal experience, as a student, from Kerala, India. May be the perspective is different in different parts of the globe.
I have seen a lot of second-hand book sellers and street vendors, selling used academic books. I don't think they are making much profits by selling them. They acquire books at no price or at very low prices directly from the users, students or faculties, and sell at one-fourth or even one-sixth of the original price of the book. They manage to do so, because they do not pay taxes to the government (either they are not bound to pay or they simply do not pay). They usually do not have permanent shop for selling the books. Sometimes they acquire books in exchange; the customer exchanges some of their books with the seller, for more useful ones, without money transaction. This is the kind of *recycling* that happens.
The reason why I argue that they are benefiting the academia is; they market their books, saying that they are used by scholars and has lots of annotations, side markings, simple explanations on the margin etc. I have even heard one fellow saying 'this book was used by a famous rank holder of the university'.
As the demand of used books is large, they are actually fulfilling the customer interest.
The reason for giving away of the books vary; having an extra copy, or the book is too old (some like new books), or the area of interest has changed or one has moved to higher class.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/06 | 1,483 | 5,760 | <issue_start>username_0: A while ago, I spoke with a colleague of mine who advised me to beware of journals that require you to pay to publish your work, as they may be predatory. Today, I spoke with my advisor who informed me that even some reputable journals require payment to publish... even upwards of thousands of dollars! Is this really ethical? I can understand requiring a nominaly insignificant membership fee of some sort to keep the journal running, but such an exhorbitant amount? Shouldn't all who have significant work to publish in a field have the ability to diseminate in reputable journals without being super rich?<issue_comment>username_1: Well someone's got to pay. If it's the reader, then howls go up about Open Access. So that leaves the authors.
**The costs of publishing**
A high-quality journal needs high-quality editors. An awful lot of literature still gets printed and distributed around the world and that's expensive. Remember, reading this, we are the ones who are most active online, and so our paper-reading habits are much more likely to be skewed towards predominantly (or even exclusively) online access, so are not fully representative. High-quality journals often also get involved in conference sponsorship, publicity, and so on. The peer-reviews get co-ordinated; there is often some vetting of suitable reviewers; their responses need to be interpreted correctly; special issues get co-ordinated; someone ensures a good balance of articles covering the journal's remit.
So, there's a lot of costs, and someone's got to cover them. If we want to publish at almost-zero overheads, we write a blog. A journal is much much more than a blog - and some of the things that make it much more than a blog, cost money.
**Not necessarily an efficient market**
That's not to say that in certain sectors, there isn't a market failure: some sectors do have suspiciously high profit margins. And market regulators should be looking at removing barriers to entry. Those barriers certainly aren't insurmountable, as notable new scientific publishers have emerged recently, with new business models: [PLOS](http://www.plos.org/) being an obvious example, founded in 2000 to support Open Access, and [becoming a publisher in its own right in 2003](http://www.plos.org/about/what-is-plos/early-history/); and now a serious player, using the author-pays model.
**Author beware**
There are also plenty of scammers using the author-pays model. So be careful out there. Talk to colleagues about who's reputable and who's not. Read the journals. And there are lists online of the disreputable publishers. Read more about that on this site at [How do you judge the quality of a journal?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/101/96)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It does make sense to pay but I think the fees now went through the roof.
for example BMJ charges 2500 british pounds (all article are forced into paying open access) and they still sell printed copies.
Hybrid model of optional payment for open access seems to be dying in favor of all open access and all journals charge an article fee.
(medical field answer)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: A market in which authors pay to publish and their careers depend on the number of publications they have opens new possibilities for unethical practices, and those are being actively exploited by [vanity press "gold open access" journals](https://symomega.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/academic-spam). On the other hand, there are very reputable journals like [PlosONE](http://www.plosone.org/) that charge authors but maintain highly ethical standards.
Personally, I think [open submission is even more important than open access](http://scienceinthesands.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-defense-of-submission-in-scientific.html). For a more thorough criticism of the author-pay model, see [these](http://www.ams.org/notices/201109/rtx110901294p.pdf) [articles](http://www.ams.org/notices/200803/tx080300381p.pdf) from the Notices of the American Mathematical Society.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: This is an answer about the cost of publishing science article.
A math paper, where the author gives a pretty good draft (we use LaTeX) still has to manage peer-review (which usually means paying a secretary to contact authors, late referees, and so on) and to typeset articles. I have heard that the overall cost is $50 per page for a cheap journal (and math pages tend to be small since we mostly write with a single column).
It has been computed in the (very interesting) blog SV-POW that subscription earn the publisher more than $5000 on average. But of course, we are cheated a lot with those prices.
PLoS ONE gains money (and reinvest it, since PLoS is non-profit) and charges "only" $1350 per article.
Recently, Cambridge University Press announced the launch of a math journal in gold OA for $750 a paper -- after three years of fee waivers for everyone.
Last, PeerJ claims to be able to publish all the paper one wants for a few hundred dollar, paid once in one's life (plus yearly reviewer duty).
My conclusion: there is a wide range of prices, and a wide range of services a journal can provide, or not.
Concerning the actual question, I would say there is no ethical problem with paying a publisher for the work it does, as soon as the editors are independent from the money flow; but there are some issues with a system where most journals would run such a model.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't think it is ethical to ask individuals to pay to publish papers. If anything they should be paid for their contribution to the journal. If anyone should pay it should be the reader...subscription fees etc
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/06 | 715 | 2,871 | <issue_start>username_0: Can you include books and/or professional society memberships in expenses under grants from agencies like NSF and NIH?
I've purchased lots of books under grants from DOE and the Air Force in the past, but I'm wondering if they're generally considered allowable. My quick searching uncovered the following:
* NIH seems to explicitly [allow books at least](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2011/nihgps_ch7.htm#preaward_preagreement_costs)
* NSF: I'm guessing books are allowed under ["materials and supplies"](http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/manuals/gpm05_131/gpm6.jsp#610)
I haven't found anything about allowability of professional society memberships.<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, professional society memberships generally fall into a gray area due to taxes. It is useful to split them into two categories. The first is where you get no financial benefits that offset the cost. The second is where membership gets you a discount for publication, meeting registration, or access to a journal.
In my experience the first cases is not allowable since it is considered a personal benefit and is tax deductible. I have never been able to charge these to any grant. The second case often results in fights with the finance office. They would prefer to charge the grant the extra money and not pay for membership. With a little bit of fighting, I have never had a problem getting them to pay the membership at the time of meeting registration when they can see the savings fully offsets the cost of membership (as it often does in my field). I have no idea what would happen if it was only a partial offset.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: [The page you linked to in your question](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2011/nihgps_ch7.htm#preaward_preagreement_costs) directly addresses memberships for NIH:
>
> **Dues or Membership Fees**
>
>
> Allowable as an F&A cost for organizational membership in business, professional, or technical organizations or societies.
>
>
> Payment of dues or membership fees for an individual’s membership in a professional or technical organization is allowable as a fringe benefit or an employee development cost, if paid according to an established organizational policy consistently applied regardless of the source of funds.
>
>
>
I agree with your conclusion about books for NSF grants, and their page oddly doesn't list information about memberships. I would imagine that it could arguably fall under the section related to conference fees, but that's conjecture.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I have occasionally bought books with NSF grant money. At the time, I was told, by the staff in charge of grant accounting, that books are an allowable expense provided they directly relate to the research being done under the grant.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/06 | 613 | 2,789 | <issue_start>username_0: How much of an advantage does an Applied Mathematics PhD applicant have if he/she has a publication under his/her belt?
Of course, this depends on the "prestige" of the journal that he/she published in. I suppose publishing in a top tier journal like Nature or Science would be a major advantage, *but would the applicant be one of the first picks because of it*?
More pertinently (I suppose seekers of such advice would not have a top tier journal publication), *what about those with publication/publications in lesser journals*?<issue_comment>username_1: The question is not answerable at this level of abstraction, because grad school admission is not decided on the basis of easily described rules. If you're a coauthor on a brilliant and important paper, you may still be rejected if the committee doubts you were a major contributor to the paper. On the other hand, some applicants with no publications at all may be accepted.
As a general rule, nobody on the committee will read the paper itself. That would be both time-consuming and unlikely to be fruitful, since the committee probably doesn't even have an expert in this specific area. They may get a little information from the abstract or your personal statement, but everything else they know about the paper will come from your letters of recommendation.
The letters need to indicate why this paper should help your case for admission. Specifically, they need to explain why the paper is interesting, what you contributed to it if you are not the only author, and why your work was impressive.
This task will be easier if the paper is really good, and that's correlated with being published in a top journal, but this is not really necessary. For example, if an undergraduate makes a major contribution to a solid but not exceptional research paper, then that could mean a lot, even if the paper doesn't get accepted to a leading journal. Of course the paper needs to meet at least some standards - publishing in a junk journal or vanity press doesn't count. However, the most important issue is demonstrating that you can carry out good research, not getting your name in a prestigious venue.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The answer depends on how the admissions process works. In my school you need to find someone who is willing to be your primary advisor to have any chance of being accepted. I am much more likely to spend a few extra minutes considering a candidate with a publication. In fact, I would say that I would schedule an informal phone interview with anyone with a publication nearly independent of the CV. Beyond this initial stage, which in my opinion counts for a lot, but not everything, things get too complicated to speak generally.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/06 | 411 | 1,545 | <issue_start>username_0: Last year, I wrote a paper and it got accepted and was presented at a conference.
This year, I am writing a more in-depth paper about a similar subject; but since one of the figures in my first paper is adequate for my purpose, I want to reuse that one (of course citing it adequately).
Am I OK in doing that, or is that seen as self-plagiarism or unprofessional?<issue_comment>username_1: (**EDT**: "in this case.." ) There's no such thing as self-plagiarism. It's your figure. you drew it, you have the right to use it anywhere you want any time you wish and as much as possible. I don't even see a need to cite previous appearances of the same figure (unless this figure is the main theorem/claim/result rather than an explanatory tool.)
The only thing to check is that the conf that published your paper doesn't hold some rights on it, due to editing it, improving it or that you gave up your rights when you signed a copyright-transfer form (as the Anonymous Mathematician mentioned in his comment)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There *is* such a thing as [self-plagiarism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-plagiarism#Self-plagiarism), but I would say that your case (reusing a figure that you created and providing a citation to it) is not an instance of it. I also don't think it is unethical or unprofessional. As username_1 says in [his answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/3122/64), just make sure you ask permission from the copyright holder (if it isn't you).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/09/07 | 832 | 3,222 | <issue_start>username_0: It is often said that branch change is possible while going for MS/ PhD in USA. But almost all examples (as seen on university sites and various blogs) are of someone completing undergraduate studies (ie BE, BTech) from ‘Circuit’ branches of engineering i.e. Electrical, Electronics, Telecom, Instrumentation etc and joining MS/PhD in CS.
* How difficult it is to go for MS or PhD in CS, having studied in ‘Non Circuit’ branches like Mechanical, Civil, Chemical and Aeronautics Engineering?
* Are there people out there?
* What one should do if one has a strong drive, skills and suitable projects, seminars, publications to support the same?
(My query refers mainly to top ranking colleges, say top 20)<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is possible to get an admission for MS or PhD in a US university having studied Bachelor degree in 'Non Circuit" field. This is more true if you have *strong drive, skills and suitable projects, seminars, publications to support the same*. However, to get into the top 20s would be a special case though not impossible.
Try approaching professors from top universities in CS showing them your credentials. If you are able to convince a professor, the battle is more or less won.
One of my friend did his Bachelor in Civil Engg. from a reasonably good non-US university but got admission in Electrical Engg. in a US university of medium rank.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Having to deal with applications for admission to a taught MSc CS programmes, I am sorry to say that we only accept CS BSc graduates or ``equivalent''.
Even if applicants come form ``related'' areas such as electronic engineering, they usually lack experience in basic (and non-basic) CS areas such as programming, databases, operating systems, security, discrete math, and web technology.
Sure, it's possible to learn about these matters but to enter the programme you must prove you've mastered them on a formal basis. (Otherwise, we might as well let anybody enter.) We're willing to accept applicants with provable industrial experience, provided applicants can back up the experience with a relevant CV and some references.
When it comes to non-CS BSc graduates, we simply cannot accept them *unless* they can prove they've studied CS on a formal basis. In short this usually means you always need a BSc in CS or the equivalent of a CS conversion degree.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As @username_1 said, it is possible to change fields for your M.S. or your Ph.D., but it is harder to get in and you need all those things that @username_1 said. In addition you may find some M.S. programs in C.S., offered for non-CS major students. I know that U. Penn has such a [program](http://www.cis.upenn.edu/grad/mcit/index.shtml). If you are in Mechanical Engineering, you might have worked with robotics. Robotics Institute of CMU [offers](http://www.ri.cmu.edu/ri_static_content.html?menu_id=273) both M.S. and a Ph.D. and they accept Mechanical Engineering major students too.
I think that it is harder to get into a Ph.D. program, especially if you haven't done any research on related topics, but I think you can easily get into an M.S. program.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/07 | 2,238 | 9,139 | <issue_start>username_0: I find myself in an awkward situation. Nearly two years ago I submitted a paper to a reputable mathematics journal. After 15 months it was rejected with the rationale that there had been papers published (most since the submission date) that contained results that I should have referenced. I found that a little spurious, but moved on and put my work together with some colleagues and got our new paper accepted (pending some language issues) by a different journal.
However, one of my co-authors has found that my exact result (barring some small notational changes, but with the exact same language; I can recognise it as mine, I slaved over finding just the right words!) from my original paper has had the proof published in a book by one author of the references that caused the paper to get originally rejected!
My assumption is thus that the paper was sent to this person to referee and they liked the result so much that they kept it for themselves, which also explains the delay in refereeing... I believe that this author has also presented this result at a conference as their own work. They have a number of papers published on the topic in question from their doctoral thesis.
My question is what steps can I take now to re-assert my authorship?
I believe that it would have been simpler if I had also submitted it to the arXiv, but I wasn't sure (at that time) how that would be seen by the journal. I did give a presentation of my results at a local conference, so I would be able to produce credible witnesses to back up my claim, if necessary. The book published containing my work is largely the doctoral thesis of the author, so I am attempting to find a copy of the thesis since it was deposited before I submitted my paper to the journal. Can anyone suggest any other recourse?
My co-authors would prefer to err on the side of caution and include a reference to the result in our revised paper, but I would really like to reclaim my work...<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that you write a formal letter to the journal editor who handled your submission. (Make sure it is the same editor.) Give *all* the relevant details, including dated copies of all correspondence (whether electronic or printed).
The editor should know who refereed your paper, and although the editor will not reveal their names to you (I assume that blind refereeing was done), he or she would be in the best position to act on the matter.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen is the editor agrees that some unethical behavior occurred, the editor helps you file a case against the erring referee, the erring referee gets penalized, and proper attribution is given to you.
Perhaps the worst thing that could happen is the editor does not believe your story, thinks you are just looking for trouble, and tells other editors and referees that you are a "bad, crazy person." Or the editor does believe your story but is a close friend of the erring referee and so acts as if he or she does not believe your story.
Either way, at least they know that you are aware of this unethical behavior and this will perhaps discourage the erring referee to continue with the unethical behavior in the future.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are some useful resources at <http://www.siam.org/journals/plagiarism.php> (especially if you submitted the paper to a SIAM journal, but some of them are more broadly useful).
>
> My co-authors would prefer to err on the side of caution and include a reference to the result in our revised paper, but I would really like to reclaim my work...
>
>
>
I strongly agree with you on this. You have a right not to share credit with a plagiarist, and you also don't want to seem to be treating it as independent work.
>
> I am attempting to find a copy of the thesis since it was deposited before I submitted my paper to the journal.
>
>
>
That sounds valuable to me.
Joel's suggestion of contacting the editor seems like the best way to start, especially since the editor may have critical information (if the plagiarist was indeed the referee, then the editor would have proof), but there are also several other ways you could follow up:
1. You can ask a professional society you are a member of to investigate. For example, the American Mathematical Society has a Committee on Professional Ethics.
2. You can complain to the publisher of the book. A respectable academic publisher should seriously investigate the complaint, but unfortunately some publishers are not respectable.
3. If you discover any evidence of plagiarism in the dissertation as submitted to the university, you can bring it to the attention of the university. Even if the dissertation was submitted prior to your paper, it could be worth doing some web searches to look for other plagiarism in it. If you can document previous plagiarism, it will establish a pattern that may help make your case even more convincing. I'd be surprised if this is the first or only time this person has plagiarized.
4. If the plagiarist is employed at a university or research lab, you can complain to their employer (since plagiarism is a form of professional misconduct).
Unfortunately, you may never reach a really satisfactory conclusion (see <http://www.siam.org/journals/plagiary/index.php> for a case study). For example, it may end up with the plagiarist using flimsy excuses ("I copied the text by accident when I mistook my notes on your paper for my own research", "my undergraduate research assistant copied it without my knowledge", etc.) and basically getting away with no serious consequences. However, if all goes well you should end up with an authority figure, such as an editorial board or ethics committee, agreeing that your results were stolen.
When you reach that point, I'd recommend publicizing the case, for example on your web page. Of course whether to do this is a personal choice, but I think it is a valuable service to the community to let us know about a plagiarist to watch out for (and it may deter or uncover other instances of plagiarism). You could even publicize it now, although of course if you do so you should make sure to present a compelling case and avoid speculation.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: This is just a layman's perspective, but here's what you can do:
1) Keep copies of all official correspondence.
2) If you have not touched the file at all, take a screenshot of the file explorer displaying the file name and the "last modified" date.
3) Get a signed statement attesting to your character and to the fact that you spent long hours putting your essay together.
The key is to gather enough evidence to conclude that the editor probably plagiarized. If you were to sue the author, all you'd to do is prove that there is a > 50% chance that the guy plagiarized your work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: This exact situation happened a few years ago, and [the result was](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379718301979):
>
> This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal>).
>
>
> This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief of Results in Physics, the original authors and journal, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion.
>
>
> The paper constitutes a case of plagiarism of the article “Fault Detection of Eccentricity Based on Multi-Physics in the Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor” by <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, and <NAME> that was submitted to IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion. Ferhat Çıra served as a reviewer of the original paper and recommended it to be rejected, then used the same material in his offending paper in Results in Physics.
>
>
>
You can guess what happened: after the paper was published, the original authors raised a complaint with the original journal and possibly the editor-in-chief of the new journal. The complaint was investigated, found to be valid, and the offending article was retracted. Note the paper was retracted at the request of all three parties, hence they were all involved.
I can't tell from the outside if the authors complained to the new journal, or if they complained to the original journal who then contacted the new journal. Still, if I were an author, I'd notify the new journal as well and tell them that I have also contacted the original journal, just as a heads up.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: This happens. Quite often, in fact. You can get somewhere by pursuing this formally with the editor, but first carefully consider the political lay of the land. I should not be saying this, but it is the truth: if the editor and the plagiariser are buddies, and if one or both of them are "big shots" in the field, you are not only likely to get nowhere in this particular matter, but to have *your* reputation sullied in the bargain. *Discuss this with your co-authors, especially the ones that have been around the block once or twice.*
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/07 | 1,192 | 4,814 | <issue_start>username_0: Among the various indices for academic productivity/impact in the respective field, which is most accepted one?
You can see some productivity measures, used in academia, [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42/what-are-the-common-productivity-measures-of-a-scientist-like-h-index) and [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13/scientifically-meaningful-sources-of-bibliometrics)
This question is inspired by the comment [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3108/what-is-the-average-number-of-articles-written-per-author-in-a-year-and-has-it-i/3109#comment5086_3109) and should not be confused with [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2506/which-bibliometrics-index-to-trust-more?)
Clarification:
The word `accepted` meant to be taken as accepted in the respective field of activity, for various requirements, say appointments, career advancements, selection for awards, invitation as an examiner, editor, reviewer etc. These measures might not have much impact on the general public, and that is not being asked.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no accepted numerical measure for an individual's academic productivity. The available measures can sometimes be useful, but they all have serious weaknesses and many detractors. In particular, there is no widely accepted or safe choice: if you make any public use of a productivity measure, many people will react angrily, no matter which measure you choose (and their anger may well be justified).
Added in edit: In my experience, citation and publication counts are sometimes mentioned in letters of recommendation, but just as a crude numerical measure, rather than with any serious importance attached to them; most letters do not mention them. (I've never seen an h-index mentioned in a letter or job application, but perhaps it is more common in physics.) Hiring committee members occasionally impose minimal numerical standards, but just to rule out inappropriate cases ("we won't consider anyone for a tenure-track job unless they have at least two publications", say). In the departments I'm familiar with, nobody uses them to choose between serious candidates. Like username_2 says, they just aren't that useful: they add a small amount of information, with a lot of noise and even systematic bias.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1 that likely any numerical measure will be insufficient. The best measure is that of **esteem by your community**. This will often be reflected in:
* invitations to speak
* inclusion in special issues of journals
* election to society offices and/or
* professional awards.
As much as administrations would find it convenient, **scientific impact cannot be distilled to a few numbers**.
Edit:
I think part of the issue is that Noble is asking for some metric that can be **used by non-experts** to judge a researcher in a field other than theirs. And essentially, what we (username_3, AnonMath, JeffE, myself, etc.) are saying is: "No. **You can't really get a good answer, without asking experts within the field** of the person you want to evaluate." In some sense, this is a predictable power struggle. **Outsiders want a way to do it on their own, and the insiders are saying "No, you can't do it right without us."**
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I feel like pointing out that the very use of the word 'productivity' reflects a certain kind of bias towards "quantity". Ultimately, there are many different ways in which a researcher can make useful contributions to their field, and society at large. Maybe a key insight, a new way of thinking, a set of tools, or even a large group of students. Any particular measure of impact captures some subset of these, but there's typically no way to capture the entirety of a profile, and if you resort to numbers, the problem gets even worse.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It is pretty clear to me that in fundamental mathematics, such a measure exists and is widely used: existence (and number) of papers in the five or ten most prestigious journals.
In France, publishing in one of this paper is very important for getting a professor position. We tend to pretend we judge people on the content of the papers, but the first thing we look at is for *Annals of math*, *Inventiones* and the like in publication lists.
The US system is less known to me, but it seems very important to publish in one of these journals to get tenure too, at least for some people: I have heard a well-established colleague saying that when he was refereeing for, e.g., Annals of Math (arguably the most prestigious of all), he asked himself whether the paper was worth giving the author a career for the rest of his or her life.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/07 | 598 | 2,682 | <issue_start>username_0: As I am reviewing sources for my thesis, I am citing my sources in an (APA style) annotated bibliography (as required). However, I am also finding some excellent points from other sources that are either not entirely on-topic or less-empirical (read: poorly referenced). I have (of course) kept track of them.
What is the accepted practice for listing cited works in a thesis? Is it acceptable to have an annotated bibliography, as well as a list of "additonal works cited?" Or should they all be listed (with annotations) consistently in one section?
I have posed this question to my adviser, but I would also like to hear from others as well.<issue_comment>username_1: Generally thesis formatting questions are answered by someone at the the institutional level. At my institution, deviations from the proscribed format were not permitted. You should verify with your institution what the guidelines are. The academic merit of this approach may be a secondary concern. Usually the person who is in charge of this can be found working for your institution's library.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the answer to your question is **very dependent on your subject and the culture of that research area**. In my area, math, I've never seen an annotated bibliography as part of the thesis. I've probably only looked at 15 or 20 theses, but I've never seen one. In other areas (humanities and social sciences?), I suspect such a bibliography is more par for the course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree that reference formatting for a thesis tends to follow university and discipline specific guidelines. In my experience, theses also tend to have a little more flexibility than other documents, because the university often has to provide guidelines that are relevant to research students from a diverse range of disciplinary backgrounds.
That said, if you are using APA style referencing, then you may wish to follow APA style guidelines more generally. I have not seen annotated bibliographies in APA style. Rather, if you cite a work, then it is added to the reference list. You can cite a wide range of works including popular-science and other works of less rigour. You generally don't cite works that you simply used as background reading, unless you can weave the reference into a specific citation.
In APA style, all references are typically combined into a single section at the end of the work. An exception can occur in the case of book chapters, particularly where each chapter has been written by different authors, where separate reference lists often occur at the end of each chapter.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/09/08 | 2,321 | 9,926 | <issue_start>username_0: What sorts of restrictions do universities place on romantic or sexual relationships between faculty and graduate students, and what are the underlying issues that motivate these restrictions?
For example, suppose the student has previously taken a class from the professor but has no plans for further academic contact. What other factors could help determine whether a relationship would be allowed or considered appropriate?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on what *allowed* means. Many things are **legal but not advisable**.
Traditionally the teacher-student relationship is Platonic. It also often continues beyond the class that brings the two together. If that relationship morphs into something else, it can appear improper even if nothing is *technically* awry. We all know how important appearance is in university relations.
There is a further wrinkle. Do you mean an exclusively sexual relationship? That can create the *appearance* of a quid pro quo.
To second @Charles, this is an interesting question precisely because it is a delicate topic. For example, it appears that the OP is male and discussing a female professor. How would our reactions change if the genders were reversed? Or, if both were the same gender?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The key issue of whether it is ethical or not reduces the question: Is there a potential for a perceived imbalance of power that can be abused?
If the professor and graduate student are in separate departments, I think it is not an issue because a professor of one department has no power to influence any matters pertaining to the graduate student's academic life.
If they two are of the same field, things can get a bit delicate. Speculation of an improper relationship alone can be devastating to one's reputation even if unfounded. We all know that politics play a role in one's success in a department.
If one is maintaining a mentor-apprentice relationship (teacher-student, or advisor-mentee) and romantic relationship with the same person, it is difficult to determine whether certain actions (benefiting or detrimental to the apprentice or mentor) are biased due to emotion. Furthermore, if the romantic relationship terminates, it is difficult to continue the mentor-apprenticeship relation.
While technically not "illegal", you have to ask yourself the question "is there a potential for a perceived imbalance in power in the relationship?". If so, I strongly advise against it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it allowed to have a sexual relationship between a Professor and a graduate student?
>
>
>
This depends on the university's rules. Pretty much every plausible set of rules you can think of is used somewhere: everything is allowed (well, generally not explicitly, but by not having rules for this at all), nothing is allowed, it's allowed only if they are in different departments, it's allowed only if the professor is not teaching or supervising the student, etc. If this issue is relevant to your life, then you need to figure out which rules apply.
On the other hand, I'd say it's always a bad idea if the student and professor are in the same department or even related fields, regardless of whether the university's rules allow it. You could have a secret relationship, but it's wise to avoid awkward or troublesome secrets in your professional life (and all the problems of a known relationship will be magnified if you are discovered in a secret relationship). On the other hand, if other people in your department are aware of your romantic involvement, then it is almost certain to lead to complications. For example, the student will eventually need letters of recommendation, some of which will be written by colleagues of the professor. If they write honest letters, can they feel confident that what they wrote won't make it back to the professor? Probably not, so they will feel constrained in what they write. People reading the letters will realize this, so nothing positive will be taken quite as seriously. And letters of recommendation are just one issue - the relationship will keep coming up in different areas.
When you take into account all the important points made in other answers (power differentials, what happens if the relationship ends, improper appearances and effects on reputation, etc.), it's not hard to see why there are often rules against this.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: To give one data point on how this issue is actually framed and enforced by universities (or at least public universities in the US), let me quote from my university's [Campus Administrative Manual](http://www.cam.illinois.edu/ix/ix-a/ix-A-23.htm):
>
> **An individual may not initiate or participate in institutional
> decisions involving a direct benefit or penalty to someone with whom
> that individual has had a sexual relationship.**
>
>
> Relationships such as those between supervisors and their subordinate
> employees are inherently asymmetric. Current or past sexual
> relationships can adversely affect decisions, distort judgments, and
> undermine morale. Any university employee who participates in academic
> supervisory or administrative decisions concerning another employee
> with whom he or she has or has had a sexual relationship has a
> conflict of interest in these situations.
>
>
> Accordingly, no individual shall initiate or participate in
> institutional decisions involving a direct benefit or penalty
> (employment, retention, promotion, tenure, salary, leave of absence,
> etc.) to a person with whom that individual has or has had a sexual
> relationship. He or she must take specific actions to remove himself
> or herself from all decisions and actions that may influence the
> career or status of the other employee.
>
>
>
[...]
>
> In cases where a conflict [of interest] is identified, the UEO [Unit Executive Officer] must develop a
> Supervisory Relationship Management Plan that redirects
> decision-making and bypasses involved parties. Such procedures must be
> agreed to in writing and approved through all administrative levels.
> For changes in existing positions that might create a supervisory
> relationship in the same unit, review and approval is also required.
>
>
>
[...]
>
> The appropriate human resources office will conduct periodic
> compliance reviews. Failure to abide by this policy constitutes
> misconduct, subject to discipline under applicable University
> procedures.
>
>
>
**tl;dr:** Sexual relationships between students and faculty are not per se forbidden, but the conflicts of interest they create — either real or perceived — must be carefully *and explicitly* managed by multiple layers of campus administration.
It is worth emphasizing that these policies are invoked not only for sexual relationships that are generally considered inappropriate, such as undergraduates and their instructors, or graduate students and their advisors, but also with married (and formerly married) couples.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Official Answer: It depends on the tenets of your institution.
Real Answer: No. Never with an active student at your institution.
Relationships may sometimes be allowed between former students and faculty by the letter, but I cannot think of when it would be advisable for a faculty member to have a relationship with a student. Why not?
1. If there is ever a chance of you having power over their academic progress, it is at best a conflict of interest and at worst a setup for sexual harassment case. If you're looking for a great reason to have your tenure file silently quashed by a dean, this is a great way to do it.
2. Even if you have no direct power over a student, there is the possibility that other students could complain if there is indirect influence (e.g., if you have connections to other faculty who do have power over that student or over rival students). Even an indirect connection to the student has the potential for allegations of bias or preference.
3. You do not know the future and may run into a conflict later (e.g., student takes a course in your department, invited to work on a funded grant with member of their department). At that point, you're hosed. Even if ended the relationship as soon as the conflict became evident, the prior history of the relationship still exists. Alternatively, you could hurt your own (or the student's) academic trajectory by declining these opportunities. At the point where you are hurting a students' academic trajectory, it's unethical.
4. It looks bad on the institution. How many administrators would want it known that any of their professors are dating any of their students? If you were a parent looking at a school for your kid, all else being equal, would you want the one where faculty are dating students? Imagine if the relationship goes sour and you end up in shouting matches with a student in your office/lab (or theirs!). In that light, dating a student is an anti-service to the institution.
If the student is really going to be the love of your life, you can wait until they're graduated to start a relationship. If not, then it's certainly not worth the risk (even if your name is <NAME>).
This sort of thing used to be allowed decades ago, where it wasn't uncommon for the (almost entirely male) faculty to end up marrying female grad students. As we've become more aware of the power structures and negative externalities involved, it's become much less permissible. Rightly so, in my opinion. No school is bigger than 100,000 students and most students you meet will be done in 3-4 years maximum. Given the risks (bias, bad press, potential lawsuits by the student or their peers), I don't think it's an undue restriction to not date a few thousand people rotating over a few years.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/08 | 555 | 2,465 | <issue_start>username_0: I will be applying to do a PhD in Applied Mathematics, and have been advised by some professors to consider doing a second masters degree if I do not get in. I have also approached researchers about collaborating on projects with them to improve my profile, and is currently working on one.
I was wondering: if I fail to get into a PhD program, would it be more beneficial for my next application if I enroll in a second masters degree, or would it be better to continue doing research projects?
**Edit:** Both Suresh and JeffE gave good advice, but I have some points to add.
1. I am already actively doing research with the possibility of publication (will submit but peer review process is iffy).
2. Of course, if I am already doing research with well-known faculty collaborators who will write strong letters of recommendation, there is no need to go for a second masters. But would it be realistic to count on a second masters for the opportunity to work with well-known faculty? (IMHO finding supervisors is quite a crapshoot)
I suppose there are quite a few PhD applicants like me: did a masters, but did not excel. Should they try to get research experience with academic collaborators or go for second masters? (there might not be a right or clear cut answer)<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know anything about applied math Ph.D programs. But extrapolating from TCS programs, getting more research experience (and some concrete results) would definitely help. While a second MS doesn't help directly, it helps indirectly because
* you don't have a gap in your resume
* you automatically are placed in an environment where you can approach researchers to work on projects with them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The question is framed oddly. A master's degree *without* research experience will probably kill your chances for PhD admission, at least into the top programs.
Here's a better framing: **Is a second master's degree the best way to get more research experience?** Unfortunately, the answer depends on your personal situation. If you're already doing active research with a strong possibility of formal publication, with well-known faculty collaborators who will write you strong letters of recommendation, then a second MS is probably not necessary. If that doesn't describe your current research environment, a second MS might be the best way to find such an environment.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/09/09 | 1,096 | 4,622 | <issue_start>username_0: I've always had an interest in electrical engineering (actually all engineering in general) and I've decided that I'd like to pursue a graduate degree. I guess I'm wondering if I should really try to do this or just keep it as a fun hobby I spend all my free time doing.
So, the question is, how does one change fields between undergrad and grad school? A specific example follows, but please provide answers that address a more general case, so that your answers will be helpful to other people with the same general question.
I already have a BS and MS in chemistry with a minor in applied math.I published three papers during my MS, one first author in the top journal in my specialty and two as coauthor in an average and a so-so journal. I hope those will count for something. I finished my BS with around 3.1 and my MS with a 3.9 gpa. I'm sure that my MS advisor would write me a great letter. My GRE scores are too old to count so I'd have to retake it or try and get a pass on it since I already have a graduate degree. Since finishing school I've been working for 4 years as a chemist. I can get great recommendations from my supervisor who is a PhD chemist.
I've been working for a while to cover some of the things I would have learned in a BSEE to try and make up for my lack of one. I worked through some texts on analog/digital design, lots and lots of programming, built a balancing robot that got a bit of internet attention, and I'm currently working on an autonomous robotics project that's looking really good so far. After that I have more project ideas than I have time or money for.
I want to apply for PhD programs (specifically in controls/robotics) but I'm worried that my application will get tossed right away because I don't have a BSEE. Maybe I should just apply to MS programs?<issue_comment>username_1: I will answer a slightly more general question. **How does one change fields between undergrad and grad school?** The answer *very carefully* is correct, albeit unhelpful. The single most important criteria when applying for a strong PhD (at least in math, engineering, or the natural sciences, but probably true in other fields too) are **letters of recommendation** and **demonstrated research ability**. Bad grades can sink your application, but good grades (even from a top school) are not enough to get you in (nor good test scores, although they help).
If you want to get a PhD, but don't have any experience in the area, you should **first apply to a masters program**, where **you can gain experience and impress potential letter of recommendation writers**. Often admission to a masters program is less competitive than to a PhD program (if even getting into the masters program is difficult, you could start as a non-degree student). But if you can publish a few papers during your masters and convince a few of your professors that you have both the *ability* and *desire* to succeed in grad school, then you're application to a PhD program will be much stronger. I also recommend that you **talk with the schools where you plan to apply** and ask what they suggest that you do to strengthen your application.
You might also like to read this question and answer [Is it possible to attend graduate school in pure math after undergrad in CSE?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/is-it-possible-to-attend-graduate-school-in-pure-math-after-undergrad-in-cse/3000#3000)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think username_1 has covered the most important points. I will add just one more which is relevant here as the OP mentions to have been a practising chemist for 4 years.
I think professional/industrial experience can also add to the weight of a PhD application. This is *even when* there may not be any visible or direct connexion between the field being sought for PhD and the field being professed (at or just before the time of the application). Such candidates are desirable because they are assumed to be target-oriented, disciplined, good at time management, and team players.
Therefore, a letter of recommendation from say the director or chief technology officer of the company that highlights such characteristics can also increase one's chances. Actually, if such a letter additionally expresses high confidence on the *fast learning and grasping abilities* of the candidate (justified with tangible examples along with achievements), then I believe that that letter can be even stronger than letters from your MS co-supervisor or a professor whose lectures you excelled in, etc.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/10 | 1,421 | 5,971 | <issue_start>username_0: In context of a person's academic profile in a web application, I need to broadly classify the various degree/designations/stages in the academic career of the person.
For example I would like to clearly know what is the current stage the person , in his academic career path starting from a pre-university student & progressing ahead.
So I would like to classify something like (below) & ask user to select one of these designations:
Edited:
-------
```
Pre-university student
Undergraduate(Bachelors/diploma/associate degree) student
-doing
-earned
Masters student
-doing
-earned
PhD(Doctorate) studs
-doing
-earned
Postdoc
Faculty
Scientist
Independent researcher
```
Does this cover most of the stages/designations in the academic career or is anything missing ? Is there a better term to represent any one ?
Update:
-------
I don't really need a fine grained classification like assistant prof, associate prof, etc but I do want to include all the academic community & related people who have interests in academic topics(which includes scientists or self learners as well) & ranging from university student to faculty, independent researcher or whatever are the higher positions. May not be necessarily a hierarchical list but at least an exhaustive list is needed.
Update 2:
---------
Another idea was too use classification which includes people from academia & even outside that work on/ explore academic topics & removing ambiguity between faculty, scientist & research positions . Something like this:
```
-> A Learner/ enthusiast,
-> Pre-university student
University/Research Students:
================================
-> Undergraduate(Bachelors/diploma/associate degree) student
-doing
-earned
-> Masters student
-doing
-earned
-> Doctorate(PhD, DPhils, etc) student
-doing
-earned
University Faculty/Research Positions:
==================
-> Professor
-> Associate Professor
-> Assistant Professor
-> Lecturer
-> Emeritus
-> Other
-> PostDoc,
-> Scientist
-> IndependentResearcher
```<issue_comment>username_1: Like EngergyNumbers said, you should tailor your classification to the culture of your targeted audience. This [list of academic ranks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_ranks) for various countries might be helpful for that.
Also, "Scientist" and "Researcher" doesn't really mean anything. A postdoc, assistant professor, principal investigator, or someone doing research in the commercial sector can be a scientist or a researcher.
I think you know this but just in case: "postdoc" is an (often) temporary job that people take up after obtaining a PhD, and not a qualification. Some people do not do postdocs, and go directly into teaching, industry or become assistant professors after getting their PhD.
Finally, "Post Grad" can refer to both masters degree or PhD students. It is common to say "applying to graduate/grad school" to when referring to applying to a PhD course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I see problems with your ranking.
Firstly, there is not much difference between `* (Completed)` and the subsequent `** (Ongoing)` level - somebody who completed a post-doc probably is currently either a professor or in the industry, where having a completed post-doc experience does not matter much in terms of being an academic rank. Besides that, there are countries where being a "post-doc" does not mean anything special, the official position would be either the same as being a PhD. student, or a staff researcher.
Secondly, if you want to be too fine grained, there are several levels of professor positions missing (assistant, associate, full plus all the combinations with tenure position, or being a teaching/research specific position, etc.)
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, as others here wrote, the ladder is culture specific so you need to think about your target audience. In the case the audience of your website is somewhat local, go with the local tradition.
If your audience is global, my advice would be to give up the particular fine classification. Rather, you could go with a combination of 3 axes of coarse-grained classification roughly corresponding to the track the person currently follows (industry/academia) plus the highest achieved academic degree plus indication of duration of the current status. You would end up with classes such as
* academic & BSc + 2 years - your ongoing undergrad student
* industry & MSc + 5 years - you are probably facing an experienced professional
in an industry
* academic & PhD + 3 years - either a post-doc, or an assistant professor, or lecturer, well anyway an early career researcher
* academic & PhD + 20 years - somebody roughly equivalent to a more senior-level professor
Well, this way I guess you can capture more nuanced classification, than with a single ladder. You can of course add your own axes, e.g., tenure vs. pre-tenure, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I take a somewhat skeptical view of the world. I see three stages:
1. Trainee: It doesn't matter if they are a student or a post doc or working in industry, if their goal is to acquire a set of skills and move up, then they are trainees. Generally, trainees think being an independent investigator is fun.
2. Research monkey: Someone who is neither attempting to acquire new skills nor is conducting independent research. Generally, research monkeys realize that independent investigator spend all their time trying to get funding to allow research monkeys to do the fun stuff.
3. Independent investigator: Someone who conducts their own research. Generally, when not looking for funding they are trying to figure out how they could become a research monkey.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/11 | 326 | 1,296 | <issue_start>username_0: Does working for a prestigious company help in a PhD application? For example, suppose one does interesting work while at a prestigious company. Would this help an application?<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is "probably." The long answer is "it depends."
Admission to a graduate program is almost solely dependent on how well you impress that department's graduate admissions committee (assuming you meet any minimum admissions standards: grades, GRE, etc). If they attach value to your work in industry, it'll help you out immensely. If they don't, it probably won't hurt you.
This [Kaplan page](http://www.kaptest.com/GRE/Get-into-Grad-School/Build-a-Great-Application/inside-the-admission-committee.html) outlines the general process.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If your work at the prestigious company involved a demonstration of your intellectual and/or research prowess, then yes, it'll probably help. If your work was mostly grunt work, then it's unlikely to make a large impact.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Except if you are in a recognized inner lab of a big company, it will probably not help, and not hurt. Working may help if you do something that proves that you have skills useful to research work, that's all.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/11 | 1,577 | 6,299 | <issue_start>username_0: I graduated with a B.S. degree and I have been working in industry for a few years as a software engineer. I am very interested in reinforcement learning, a sub-field of machine learning, and I am interested in performing research and publishing a paper on that topic.
The problem is, in my city there are no professors working in this field (or related fields) who could help me. I contacted other professors in different cities and they rejected my help request for a variety of reasons (such as I am not their student, they don't know me, they are busy, etc.).
Still, I want to perform research and publish a paper. I can't attend school as a full time student and my collaboration requests were not successful. Given all that, how can I publish by myself?
1. How to choose a research topic?
2. Should I read all the papers on this field?
3. How to decide which problem to work on or which is not obsolete? I don't want to work on something which no one is interested in.
4. Should I read and study all the prerequisite material, or fill in the gaps during research efforts?<issue_comment>username_1: I can't comment on the later issues—they are too general for the scope of a single question.
To address the first issue, yes, it is possible to publish without a professor. People at corporations and small companies publish all the time without academic collaborators (and without PhD level staffers). The challenge is having a topic that is worth publishing, and finding an appropriate venue to publish it in.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Is it possible to publish a paper without a Professor?
>
>
>
Yes, sure, why not? The point is whether the paper (your work) is worthy enough to be published or not. It's not the point if the paper has a professor or not; it's about being professional and not about a professor.
>
> How to choose a research topic?
>
>
>
First, it depends on your interest. Then it depends on if it's useful, uses new method, new knowledge, etc.
>
> Should I read all the papers on this field?
>
>
>
Not all but only related to your topics. Because you have to "re-search" if others have done it already. You need their results and methods to compare with your work for reference.
>
> How to decide which problem to work on or which is not obsolete? I don't want to work on something which no one is interested in.
>
>
>
I give up for this Q. Actually,it's not hard to answer but not easy too. Because there's no right or wrong answer, only depends on your like. People select scientific papers by their own standard and so do I. No one knows exactly which standard criteria should be decided, but at least you may know the trend of interests, so please "re-search"!
>
> Should I read and study all the prerequisite material, or fill in the gaps during research efforts?
>
>
>
Oops! I have to do it a lot.
PS: This may not the most correct answer because I'm not a professor but at least I hope it helps.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it possible to publish a paper without a Professor?
>
>
>
Sure. Nobody gives a rat's patootie about the academic ranks of paper authors (at least in my field). I published sole-author papers as a graduate student. I have colleagues who published as undergraduates, and others who published with no university (or research lab, or corporate) affiliation at all.
>
> How to choose a research topic?
>
>
>
Choose something you're good at, that you're passionate about, and that other people will care about. If you're not good at it, you'll never get anywhere. If you're not passionate about it, you won't put in enough effort to succeed. If nobody cares, then, well, nobody cares.
>
> Should I read all the papers on this field?
>
>
>
No. Reading *all* the papers in any field is simply not possible. But you should read a *lot*. A few hundred papers should get you started (ha ha only serious).
>
> How to decide which problem to work on or which is not obsolete? I don't want to work on something which no one is interested in.
>
>
>
Read lots of papers; talk to lots of people; go to seminars/conferences and listen to talks. Or decide that the topics that you care about are so fascinating and your results are so compelling that you'll *make* other people interested (but be prepared for disappointment). Or—my personal favorite—just make up something cool out of thin air.
>
> Should I read and study all the prerequisite material, or fill in the gaps during research efforts?
>
>
>
Yes. Both. (Except not *all* the prerequisite material; that's impossible.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Based on your comment above, that you "want to work on a problem and solve it", I strongly recommend that you change your goal from "publishing in a journal" to simply "solving a problem". By limiting yourself to research that would be publishable in a journal, you place yourself under the following very harsh constraints:
1. You must become familiar with the existing academic literature such that you can properly cite other academic sources when discussing prior findings.
If you don't take the journal route, you can become familiar with existing techniques through books, tutorials, wikipedia, and blog posts, and work from there.
2. When publishing to a journal, your work will have a higher likelihood of being published if it relates to the topic du jour. Certain concepts go in and out of style, and researching a less popular topic can have an impact on when you can publish. On a related note, there's a lot of time between submission and actual publication; a number of months to almost a year is common.
Alternatlive, if you go your own route, then you won't have that delay.
3. You must be willing to work in areas which are of interest to whatever journal in which you wish to publish. This requires knowledge of the different journals and what they typically publish, which may be difficult for you to find without academic contacts.
If you don't take the journal route, you can simply publish your findings in a blog post or other open setting (there may be places specifically intended for this sort of thing, I'm not sure).
4. You will have to pay non-trivial fees for publication.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/11 | 1,127 | 4,889 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm currently doing a PhD in applied mathematics, I'm about to start my final year. The problem that I've been working on for the last 2 years was originally proposed by my advisor and one of his colleagues. The direction of research wasn't that good, the problem had already been studied by previous researchers and there is very little one can add to what's there already.
I discussed this with my supervisor early on, but he suggested I persevere because he saw some promise in our approach. In these 2 years I have struggled to find something worth mentioning, and have only produced meagre results at best. What's worse is that my advisor has virtually no interest in what I do. I don't think he's actually read any of my work, or even read any of the surrounding literature. His advice has not been so useful.
Without anybody to guide me and without a clear problem to work on I feel really lost and a bit cheated especially considering the amount of attention he gives to his other students. I'm no genius but I've consistently helped his other postgrads do their own research (in completely different areas), and while our advisor has guided them into publishing several papers each, I'm sitting here clueless, with absolutely nothing to show for myself.
Sorry about the rant, but I'm really lost. Any advice would be appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: There are two questions to answer:
>
> * If you got another project from this advisor, would you stay?
> * If you got the opportunity to switch advisors, would you leave?
>
>
>
If you are willing to stick with this advisor, you should bring up your dissatisfaction—and perhaps suggest a plan of action to "migrate" to another topic. (Can you, for instance, use the methodology on a different problem where it might be more successful?)
If that isn't an option—and to be honest, I suspect it isn't—you should work as aggressively as you can to find a new advisor and a new research topic, while if possible staying under the radar. You don't want to create a situation *before* you have somebody firmly in your corner who's willing to support you.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Many of my friends doing PhDs in the UK have this problem, even those in top tier universities. Those with the worse problems ended up dropping out and reapplying for the same PhD under another supervisor. I think the supervisor tend to be more integral to PhD students in the UK and there might not even be an option to "switch".
Based on their experiences:
1. Like username_1 said, you should definitely stay under the radar. This was advised to all of my friends in similar situation. Most importantly, it is deemed unprofessional to openly blame your supervisor, even if it really is your supervisor's fault.
2. Seek official help: the single biggest turning point for my friends was using the official channels and/or speaking to the director of graduate studies in your department. These people are very experienced at handling situations like your, and will certainly know to do it covertly.
Possible outcomes based on my friends' experiences:
1. Your director of graduate studies or student counselor might offer to help or get someone to help read your current work and evaluate your situation. This might identify the problems you need to fix to graduate, and they might be able to help communicate any issues to your supervisor.
2. They might arrange for a co-supervisor. This resolved the situation for several of my friends. The co-supervisor essentially becomes your new supervisor.
3. In the worse case, it doesn't work out. The student drops out of the program and reapply to another supervisor with the help of the department (making it easier). Unfortunately, it can be a gamble because they have the option of rejecting you. Depending on your school, they might have a different policy and allow for an actual switch instead of having to reapply.
Bottom line: seek official help ASAP. Stay professional and under the radar, do not sound vituperative. Don't be afraid of taking drastic actions like reapplying if need to.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: If you're lucky, our institution have some sort of principal or someone responsible for the graduate students, someone to talk to about exactly these things. A review on the progress should be done at least every year, to avoid being stuck on a problem for too long.
If things do no run smoothly, it is a problem not only for you, but for the institution, so it should be in everybody’s interest to solve this, either with a new problem or new advisor. As people mention, it is not really uncommon,
but I'd say be careful blaming your advisor, sometimes there's just a mismatch.
Talk to some other professor maybe, they've all been young once, and might have some good advice.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/11 | 1,388 | 5,841 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm currently attending a conference, and considering that (almost) everybody has a smartphone, but not necessarily an Internet access (because of roaming charges), it could be nice to have an application that could cache the program, the local map, the list of attendees, that could be updated with program changes.
Does anyone know such an application? Ideally, that should be a "meta"-application, that could be instantiated for specific conferences (a bit like Easychair).<issue_comment>username_1: AFAIR [Lanyrd](http://lanyrd.com/) offers such an application. It works mostly for programming conferences, not so much for academic ones.
Personally, I use [Dropbox](https://www.dropbox.com/) and upload conference book (pdf) there. For maps and additional info (on travel, accommodation, etc) I use [Evernote](http://evernote.com/).
However, they are not very specific solutions and I'm missing an app that would make it easy to collect all conference stuff. Including "which talk to choose out of competing ones" and to tick talks and participants I would like to attend slash talk to.
And also, sometimes it's hard to beat printed maps, and a combination of the conference book + a pen.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There's no generic application. However, some conferences offer features geared towards smartphones (customizable calendars being the most useful one). I also use Dropbox and a note-taking application to cobble together a conference environment.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I recently attended the annual meetings of the European Economic Association. They had a quite nice mobile version of the conference web page combined with free wifi at the conference venue. I had good use of the webpage (almost a web application). The page is apparently still up, at:
<http://www.eea-esem.com/eea-esem/2012/m/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: [Conference4me](http://conference4me.psnc.pl/) will do this more or less automatically. It displays the conference schedule including talk titles, authors, and abstracts, as well as maps of the venue, the list of participants, and other information. All this can be browsed offline but the app will automatically update it every several hours if it has an active internet connection. You can add sessions to your agenda and the app also makes it reasonably easy to add them to your calendar system of choice (at least it works with Google Calendar on Android).
However, the app's functionality depends on some cooperation from the conference organizers. For starters, it can only pull information from Indico, EDAS, and OpenConf, so the conference has to be organized using one of those systems, and all the relevant information has to be uploaded. Additionally, the conference organizers will have to ask the app's developers to manually set up the link between the conference website and Conference4me's data stream. It's apparently not a very involved process for the organizers, but you can't just download the app and immediately use it on any arbitrary conference with a website.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: One recent conference I've heard that supports such an application is [Ubicomp 2012](http://www.ubicomp.org/ubicomp2012/). They have [mobile applications](http://www.ubicomp.org/ubicomp2012/mobile-apps.html) with the content of conference programs and they are available on Android and iOS.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: CrowdCompass develops native mobile apps specifically for conferences. A native app works perfectly for conferences because it doesn't depend on the Internet to work. Our content management system (the backend) is easy-to-use and lets you make updates any time. All of these updates happen in the background so it doesn't affect the user's experience.
The app shows the contact info for all the attendees who download the app. This lets attendees start networking with each other before the event even starts, and it makes it easier to stay in touch when the event is over.
Attendees can also use the app to navigate the conference area and find speakers, exhibitors, and sponsors more easily. They can use the map feature to find local attractions (which is especially nice if they're not from the area).
The top 3 features for attendees and organizers are listed here: <http://www.crowdcompass.com/blog/best-mobile-app-features-for-attendees/>. We've got a lot more resources if you want to do some mobile research. Just check out <http://www.crowdcompass.com>.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Another app in this space is ConferenceToGo - this app is specifically geared towards multi-day medium to large academic conferences with multiple parallel tracks going on. Has all the features available in general conference apps, and a bunch of others that are specific to academic conferences, like complete offline use, exhibitor list, session discovery based on interest etc.
Check out the app at [the website](http://conferencetogo.orworks.net/)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: The [Event App Bible](http://www.eventmanagerblog.com/event-app-bible-2015) is a free and very useful PDF download from the Event Manager Blog. It outlines and compares the numerous event apps that are available - there are now lots of these! The guys there recently released the 3rd edition for 2015.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Both the *Society for Epidemiological Research* and *IDWeek* have had phone apps that interact with calendar apps to help you build schedules, find local restaurants, etc.
I'm not sure who developed them, but I will say that I found the IDWeek app, which was heavily dependent on being able to download information to update itself, to occasionally be stressful in the dubious connection space that is a convention center.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/11 | 1,282 | 4,434 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate with virtually no experience with the expectations of academia (so I apologize in advance for the silly question). I'm finishing up a paper describing my research and would like to include a figure to describe something in my "Background" section.
There is a graduate student in my lab who has a paper dealing with the background topic and has a perfect image that I'd like to use as said figure. The paper has been accepted but not yet published. Would I be violating some protocol if I asked to use the identical figure? If not, what is the proper way to attribute the figure to the original source? In the caption?<issue_comment>username_1: You can always ask, then it is the choice of the author to accept or not. As for the citation, if the paper is accepted but not published, you can have a note in the citation "to appear". For instance, your text could like:
>
> Following [Alice12], we describe ... as illustrated in Fig.1.
>
>
> [Alice12] Alice, paper, journal, accepted, to appear.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is perfectly okay to ask for the figure knowing well that the other person may not give.
I assume you would get the permission to use the figure. As @eykanal, pointed out we need to put the phrase "used with permission" or write "Source: Citation" in the figure caption.
Example below:
Figure 1: An example flow chart [Source: <http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-05-2003/images/jw-0502-java1013.gif]>
You may also write
Figure 1: An example flow chart [Source: Alice et al. to appear in Journal,Year]
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Assuming that an identical image, either modified from the original or made based on the original, is being used, here is a better way of citing the source.
This is from [APA](http://library.nmu.edu/guides/userguides/apacitingtables.htm),
>
> **Material adapted from a journal article. Note format is different from References.**
>
>
> Figure #. Description/Note. Adapted from “Title of Article,” by <NAME>.
> Author and <NAME>. Author, year, Title of Journal, volume, p. xx.
> Copyright year by the Name of Copyright Holder. Adapted [or Reprinted]
> with permission.
>
>
>
See this from [Wiley](http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CEwQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fauthorservices.wiley.com%2FPermissions%2520Guidelines%2520for%2520Authors%2520PDF.pdf&ei=9b1QUJnfIImHrAer1ICAAg&usg=AFQjCNGpMrV1upRnZFBdtA7PzrKjeOxmGw&sig2=W2wQcx-T972xw7kqUJlBFQ)
>
> If you wish to republish an already modified figure or table,
> permission should be obtained from the source of the modified item,
> but the credit line should include reference to the original source(s)
> of the material as well as to the source of the modification. If you
> wish to republish a previously published figure or table originally
> compiled from data from other sources, permission for its re-use must
> be obtained from whoever owns the copyright in the compilation. The
> credit line should include reference to the source of the compilation,
> and to the sources of the original data by using the words ‘Based on’,
> ‘Compiled from’, or similar, or by using the credit line appearing on
> the original compilation.
>
>
> If you wish to make changes or further changes to content which is
> already in the process of being cleared, you may need to reapply for
> permission as it is possible that the copyright owner will not like
> the new proposed alterations and they are entitled to refuse
> permission.
>
>
>
See also [MTU](http://www.mtu.edu/gradschool/administration/academics/thesis-dissertation/copyright/faq/)
>
> **I modified a figure from a journal article. Do I need to ask for permission?**
>
>
> It depends. Significant modifications result in a figure that is
> uniquely yours. The source of the inspiration or base of the figure
> must be acknowledged in your caption. To clarify the source and figure
> creator, we recommend a credit line in your caption similar to,
> "Figure adapted by author from SOURCE." where SOURCE would be replaced
> with an appropriate citation. If the figure is just a tracing of the
> original figure, or does not contain a significant amount of
> creativity, you have not created it, and must ask for permission.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/12 | 864 | 3,581 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a final year physics Master's student. I want to do a PhD after completing my masters. But instead of applying directly after completing masters, I wish to take a break from academics for a year and do a good research project with some professor unofficially, since doing good research is a big factor for PhD applications.
I have also got some comments that a PhD applicant with a break is given less importance, unless he has a high impact research done in the break.
Now I can't take a risk regarding high impact research. Hence I am confused regarding my future plans. What are the suggestions. How should I carry forward?<issue_comment>username_1: This is, of course, ultimately up to you, people can only advise you; I will provide a list of some things to think about; hopefully this will help :)
* You say that you want to "do a good research project". Isn't that what the master's project is for? I don't know anything about unofficial projects but it could work.
* Yes, taking a break *from academia* would be a slight disadvantage, but if you're doing an unofficial project, then this won't be a problem at all, will it?
* "High impact research", in my opinion, is a very ambitious/risky thing to set your mind on, in terms of a master's-level project. Don't forget that as a master's *student*, you are still expected to be learning; a PhD supervisor is unlikely to *expect* something like this, although they would like it!
* Can you do a project over summer? In the UK at least, there are loads of paid internships and summer projects available, both with universities and industry.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My perspective is primarily European, since I did my Master's in Sweden and my PhD in Germany. That said, I *did* take a break before starting on my PhD. It wasn't entirely voluntarily -- I did not get any PhD studentships when I wanted them, and had to wait for the next round of applications.
During my break, I moved from Sweden to Germany, and took a job doing industrial software design for a consultancy firm. It gave me good experiences, the knowledge that I could make a career in industry, and also a very strong drive to make it in academia. Furthermore, the PhD position I eventually was admitted to, I got in part because I had, at that point, both Open Source and industry experience with packaging, shipping and distributing software -- something my advisor wanted to learn more about.
For me, this all worked out well. I left my industry job after 10 months to start a PhD, I graduated with a decent enough thesis, and now -- several years later -- I am about to start the first research project with my name on the grant application.
One fundamentally important thing to note with my anecdote is that there is a huge difference in how PhDs are admitted in large parts of Europe vs. in the US. For my PhD, I applied for a job with a particular professor, which happened to include “*opportunity to study for a PhD*” as part of the job description. This is how it mostly is done in Germany, and also in Sweden. In this setting, it is important that you come to the PhD with a set of credentials that will be valuable to your advisor, specifically. I managed to do just this with my break -- but that was luck as much as anything else.
In the US, there seems to be a LOT more politics involved in the process, and the applying to a school aspect of the US process biases the experience more towards grooming your CV for academia in general.
Your mileage will vary.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/14 | 850 | 3,579 | <issue_start>username_0: I have published a paper about the combinatorics of adding a mixture of chemicals to a compound and observing a number of spectral peaks for this, which allows the user to gain information about the compound involved, while keeping cross-chemical effects low.
I am pretty sure the same approach not only occurs in my field of expertise, but also elsewhere in science, as this is a pretty abstract concept. Where can i find other problems like this, so that my algorithm can be solved by simply modifying the input/output of my software? A specific journal would of course only hold articles concerning my own field/their own field.<issue_comment>username_1: This is, of course, ultimately up to you, people can only advise you; I will provide a list of some things to think about; hopefully this will help :)
* You say that you want to "do a good research project". Isn't that what the master's project is for? I don't know anything about unofficial projects but it could work.
* Yes, taking a break *from academia* would be a slight disadvantage, but if you're doing an unofficial project, then this won't be a problem at all, will it?
* "High impact research", in my opinion, is a very ambitious/risky thing to set your mind on, in terms of a master's-level project. Don't forget that as a master's *student*, you are still expected to be learning; a PhD supervisor is unlikely to *expect* something like this, although they would like it!
* Can you do a project over summer? In the UK at least, there are loads of paid internships and summer projects available, both with universities and industry.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My perspective is primarily European, since I did my Master's in Sweden and my PhD in Germany. That said, I *did* take a break before starting on my PhD. It wasn't entirely voluntarily -- I did not get any PhD studentships when I wanted them, and had to wait for the next round of applications.
During my break, I moved from Sweden to Germany, and took a job doing industrial software design for a consultancy firm. It gave me good experiences, the knowledge that I could make a career in industry, and also a very strong drive to make it in academia. Furthermore, the PhD position I eventually was admitted to, I got in part because I had, at that point, both Open Source and industry experience with packaging, shipping and distributing software -- something my advisor wanted to learn more about.
For me, this all worked out well. I left my industry job after 10 months to start a PhD, I graduated with a decent enough thesis, and now -- several years later -- I am about to start the first research project with my name on the grant application.
One fundamentally important thing to note with my anecdote is that there is a huge difference in how PhDs are admitted in large parts of Europe vs. in the US. For my PhD, I applied for a job with a particular professor, which happened to include “*opportunity to study for a PhD*” as part of the job description. This is how it mostly is done in Germany, and also in Sweden. In this setting, it is important that you come to the PhD with a set of credentials that will be valuable to your advisor, specifically. I managed to do just this with my break -- but that was luck as much as anything else.
In the US, there seems to be a LOT more politics involved in the process, and the applying to a school aspect of the US process biases the experience more towards grooming your CV for academia in general.
Your mileage will vary.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/14 | 645 | 2,851 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate student about to apply for a Ph.D program this year. I am interested in knowing whether seeking co-advising from a related, but different department (in my case I'm applying for econometrics but thinking about looking for co-advising from the statistics department) is seen as a thing to be encouraged in graduate schools in the U.S., or is it considered a violation of the division of departments?
Also, would it make sense if I mention in my personal statement that one of the consideration of my applying for this school's economics department is that it also has a very good statistics department, from which I can potentially seek co-advising? Would the graduate admission committee be happy to see this kind of statements?<issue_comment>username_1: It is perfectly okay to have a co-adviser from another department. *Econometrics* and *statistics* are very close areas and often students pursuing PhD in **Economics** and **Industrial Engineering** (such as Reliability Analysis) have co-advisers from **Statistics**.
Often acceptance of an applicant in the program differs from department to department. However, you may mention an intention for collaborating with **statistics** department in the research statement. Also, if you do things appropriately you may have scope to get into the statistics department as a PhD student and pursue your research in light of economics. In other words, you may have greater chance of getting into the university as a PhD student. You may have to inquire about the possibility with the **Statistics** department. I guess you have good background in both **statistics** and **economics** so this seems to work out for you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Cooperation is normally considered a desirable trait in academia these days, and collaborations between colleagues is generally a good thing. So, there is some advantage to working with multiple people.
The challenge, however, in such situations, as in many others in academia, comes down to the problem of *funding.* Unless you're able to provide your own, in the form of an external fellowship, it may be difficult to convince an advisor in your "home" department to "share" you with an advisor in another department, **unless** the other advisor is willing to pick up part of the funding. Normally, this requires that the two advisors have already thought about and worked toward a collaborative effort.
On the other hand, it may be substantially easier (and in some departments, required) to obtain someone from outside the department to sit on your thesis committee. While these people are not formally your advisors, they are resources to draw on, and may satisfy your concerns about level of involvement, depending on how active you want the co-advisor to be.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/14 | 467 | 1,894 | <issue_start>username_0: I've [asked this question at math.stackexchange.com](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/195824/creating-a-book-based-on-an-article-copyright-issues), but a comment proposed me to ask this question at academia.stackexchange.com instead.
Here is my question:
Elsevier [explicitly permits](http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/rights) me to make a book based on my article published with Elsevier.
What's about other publishers? May these forbid me to make a book based on my earlier article?<issue_comment>username_1: If you need to publish the book and you have found one publisher that allows it.
Why do you seek more?
Elaborate what is wrong about Elsevier that makes you not to pursue it with them?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You'll need to check the particular policies of each publisher to see what is allowed and what is not allowed. However, it is important to remember that the journal's copyright protections are limited to how the material is *expressed* in the paper, and not the underlying ideas themselves.
Typically, that means that you won't be able to "recycle" text and figures from the article into a book. However, an expansion and reworking of the ideas normally is *not* subject to copyright violation claims, particularly if you're the author of the paper which was expanded in the first place. (This normally gives you additional privileges, depending on the publishers in question.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: The answer is stated in each copyright transfer agreement (CTA) signed for publishing each paper. If the form says it is okay, then it is. Usually you can get your hand on the typical CTA used by a publisher on its website.
I would advise never to sign a CTA that does not allow reuse of the article content for a book, a dissertation and collected works.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/09/15 | 624 | 2,788 | <issue_start>username_0: I graduated from an undergraduate maths course from a prestigious university. However, I was rejected from attending it's master's program due to poor showing in the final exams. I'd like to study at said university again sometime within the next few years, applying for the same course. In applying though, I will almost definitely have to use the same final exam results. What can I do to show that I have improved, if I indeed have? I am not currently enrolled in any graduate level program.<issue_comment>username_1: Have you considered directly contacting the admissions committee or a former teacher and asking for advice? They'll probably be wary of saying anything that sounds like "if you do x,y, and z, you'll be accepted", but even if they're unwilling to share specific advice they might be willing to tell you what other experience (beyond the exams) they consider during the admissions process. A bonus of contacting the admissions committee in a respectful and professional manner is that if you do indeed follow through on any recommendations they give you, you can mention this in you application as evidence of your commitment to improving.
You might also ask if you can retake the test--either officially (i.e. if they'll replace your old results with your new ones) or unofficially (i.e. your old results will still be the official ones, but at least you have some metric showing your improvement).
Another option is to talk with a professor in the department with whom you have rapport and ask them about how to frame your rejection in your application when you reapply. For example, is it considered good form in your field to discuss what led you to do poorly on the exams (whether this was some unrelated life experience, or a lack of preparation)?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: At many schools, particularly those rated highly, the **most important parts of your PhD application are your letters of recommendation**. What many applicants don't grasp is that a PhD program is *so different from undergrad* that *past performance in the latter is only a poor indicator of future performance in the former*. For most students, the *hard part* of a PhD is doing original research. So, as an applicant, you must convince the committee that you will excel at doing research.
One way to make your case is to have **already successfully done research** (or some "research-like" project). In the absence of this, you must somehow convince your letter writers that you will succeed in research (and then they convince the admissions committee). Meet with your letter writers and ask them what they suggest. You might even ask them if you could work on some research with them (**prior to being admitted to the PhD program**).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/15 | 1,752 | 7,302 | <issue_start>username_0: I have the opportunity to teach an undergraduate class in statistics. However, I've never taken statistics and the material and concepts are a little foreign to me. I'm concerned, as a graduate student, that it may take up a lot of my personal time just to learn the material, much less teach it. I really don't want to turn the opportunity down because I know its a good learning experience, but I don't want to become overwhelmed by it. What are some effective strategies to teach a class that you've never taken before without overloading yourself?<issue_comment>username_1: It will be a huge timesaver if you can **get lecture notes from someone who has taught the class before**. There's a big difference between **understanding the material well enough to solve problems and answer questions** and **understanding it well enough to find the clearest, most succinct way to present it**. If you get someone else's lecture notes, you will only have to attain the first level of mastery, rather than the second; this will save you a *lot* of time.
**Before the class starts**, you should sit down with the syllabus (presumably you can get one from someone who's taught it before; typically, the *first* time I teach a class, I don't change much unless I have a good reason to) and **try to understand the structure ("story arc")** of the class. What are the big ideas? For example, in Calculus I, some of these are: limits, derivatives, integrals, applications. That gives you a sense of where you're going and helps you to know what may be important.
**Don't feel like you have to know every little detail perfectly.** The stuff that will likely stump you will be the obscure corner cases. The stuff that most of your students will struggle with will be much more basic, like the limit definition of a derivative, and precalc and algebra. If a student asks you a question that you can't answer right away, learn to be comfortable saying "that's a great question"; it's a little outside of the scope of this lecture, but I'd be happy to talk with you about it after class.
**Thinking on your feet in front of an audience (especially about unfamiliar material) can be really tough. Most of the time, you can avoid it.** Usually the student will be happy to talk with you after class. The reduced pressure of not being in front of the other students will help you to think more clearly. If you still can't answer the question after a reasonable amount of time, say "This is a good question. Let me think about it some more and get back to you in class next time." At that point, feel free to ask your colleagues. Often one of them will have encountered the question before, and will know the answer off the top of their head.
**tl;dnr** Get lots of help from colleagues who have taught the class before. Typically, it won't take much time from them, but it will save you a lot of time (later, when roles are reversed, be willing to do the same for someone else). **You don't have to be perfect.** If you have decent lecture notes, and you really engage with the students and answer their question, you'll be fine.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: username_1 gave a tremendously good response to this question, but I thought I'd add one more idea:
with the preponderance of online classes, it is very much possible to follow a set of lectures online as you teach a class for the first time (especially for introductory classes), and many times you can find full semester classes for free on YouTube, or [Khan Academy](https://www.khanacademy.org/), or [MIT OpenCourseWare](http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm). I've done this for an Astronomy class that I taught, and I not only learned a lot from watching the class, but I was able to set up my own classes with a good idea of class-long topics. Furthermore, I've said it at least once on Academia.SE before: observing other teachers teach is one of the best professional development methods around; you learn the good and the bad, and you see what works and what doesn't work.
The reality is that sometimes, staying one step ahead of the students is the best you can do, even if it isn't ideal from a pedagogical perspective. [As DR famously said, You "go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want."](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jPgljRvzQw).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I know this answer might be controversial, but I think it is important to mention it. The solution is to **not teach the class**.
* Teaching is a *huge* responsibility: you are responsible for the enthusiasm (and possibly the career) of a lot of students. If you do not feel ready *you are not ready*.
* Good teaching takes *a lot* of preparation. You indicate that you are concerned about the time it will take you. My conclusion: you do not have the time to prepare *properly*. This is a good reason not to teach the class.
* You are looking for *effective strategies*. There is no such thing; teaching is not some kind of "trick". The next two points explain why.
* You need to have good (if not excellent) knowledge of the field: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" can be reversed as well: if you do not understand the material well enough you will not be able to explain it simply. Reading a few course materials in the short time before the course will not be sufficient.
* Teaching takes planning. Planning takes time and experience (even if you are using existing course materials, you need to be *very* familiar with them and what they are meant to achieve).
Don't take the **responsibility** of teaching when you are not ready. But you can start preparing for next year, or ask to teach subjects you are more familiar with.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: This question is ancient history for the site, but the following may be helpful to some. I assume that the scale of the class is relatively small, probably no more than 20 students, with about 10 being better. It won't work for large lecture sections.
The main idea is to turn the class into a seminar, rather than a lecture. Admit to the students that this isn't your specialty and that you will all learn the material together. Some students will balk at this, but it can be made to work. The idea is that face time in the course is used for discussion and exploration, rather than lecture. You assign some work one day and let them work on it over night. Then you have small groups develop solutions together. You can also assign topics to students who will then, a few days later, give their best explanation of the ideas.
I asked a [very similar question at CSEducators](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/q/4379/1293) here.
This technique probably works best with somewhat sophisticated students. It is, in fact, how a lot of learning at the research edge takes place. People discuss topics then work individually and together on the ideas. But the group work aspect of it can, perhaps, entice beginners into participating and developing better study habits along the way.
Note that it doesn't depend on "staying one day ahead of the students" nor developing sophisticated teaching materials. But it does require some creativity in keeping discussions moving along.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/16 | 763 | 3,201 | <issue_start>username_0: I sometimes spend too much time on grading students' homework in the class I am a TA for. I am asking if there are some ways to improve grading speed? I hope that I can learn some useful tips from experienced people here.
For example, which one do you think will be faster, grading student by student, or problem by problem?<issue_comment>username_1: I find it very helpful to write a **grading rubric**. It includes how many points I give for each part of each problem. I also include **how many points of partial credit I give for various common errors**. Typically, my key consists of a worked copy of the exam, and I make notes about each question on the actual exam. Generally, my **rubric gets more detailed as I grade**, since it's only then that I learn what are the common mistakes.
**If I feel that I'm taking too long** grading, I'll often **start timing myself**. Maybe I get at most 30 second per question (often less). This isn't a hard rule, but it helps me know what to aim for. (Recently I just graded a calculus exam, so most of the problems were pretty quick to grade.) Your mileage will vary from one subject to another.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I have experience in grading math Olympiad papers; one principle we adopted there is to **always grade in pairs**, with **one pair grading a single problem**, or more pairs sharing a long or tricky exercise. I recommend this strategy especially for grading more important papers such as final exams, where good accuracy is important.
It may seem that this is a waste of resources; however there are several benefits:
1. Accuracy increases much. A subtle error has to slip through two people instead of one.
2. You do not waste so much time as it seems at first sight. **Grading often follows an 80-20 law**: 80% of the papers takes you 20% of the time, while grading the remaining 20% consumes the remaining 80% of it. This may be due to particularly non-standard solutions, bad handwriting, or edge cases that evade your marking scheme (as suggested by username_1, **always have a marking scheme**, especially if there are multiple pairs on the same problem, and discuss together the more complicated cases). So, while you waste some time by having two sets of eyeballs looking at the easier papers, it is often invaluable to have a ready help in the more complicated cases. Your colleague may be faster than you in spotting a definition that you missed, a hidden line of reasoning, or deciphering a strangely-looking hieroglyph. This saves a lot of time on the more complicated cases.
3. You will feel a lot less tired and find that you can go on with a steady rhythm for hours. You can chat together every now and then, share comments on good solutions, or make fun of particularly bad ones; this helps relieving tiredness.
Often we see one person trying to explain the solution to the other, or the pair spontaneously evolving a **good cop-bad cop behaviour** (one looks for weak points in the solution, the other defends the student). This method also doubles as **training for beginner graders**, that can learn from working with a more experienced partner.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/09/16 | 1,096 | 4,322 | <issue_start>username_0: I like to use first names (or forename) to cite the work of others.
It has become even more relevent when I found that somebody working in my field shares my initial and surname.
However, this is not the most common practice and in many cases, I do not know the forenames of the people I would like to cite.
Do you know of any pratical way to find these information ?
I usually resort to Google and Google Scholar search but that does not always solve the issue and can be time consuming (considering it is a detail).<issue_comment>username_1: It's a little tricky trying to expand someone's name, since you might inadvertently arrive at a form they never use (for example, some people have never been called by their first names, but have always used their middle names instead, and may prefer to be cited as "F. Middle Last" rather than "First Last", "First M. Last", or "First Middle Last"). Some people also prefer to use initials when publishing, for example out of fear of prejudice or bias.
So if the published paper uses initials, then it is safest to retain them when citing it, unless you are really confident that your expanded version of the name won't confuse readers or offend the author.
On the other hand, if the published paper gives a first name, then you have your answer. Other databases may also give first names (for example, MathSciNet or the Mathematics Genealogy Project), but which databases are relevant depends on the field.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: How about citing them in the standard way, but in order to disambiguate use marks by the names, such as superscript \*, or '. And on the first appearance of such, put the explanation of the markings, as well as reasons for doing this into a footnote.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I also prefer to cite people by their full professional name whenever possible. Unfortunately, the only reliable way to find that information is to look for papers that they've written under their full name (whether first, or middle, or second-of-four, or what have you), while being *very* careful not to confuse authors with the same initial and last name.
In some fields, there are reasonably reliable review/citation databases like *Mathematical Reviews* or DBLP that disambiguate authors by full name, affiliation, and so on. (For example, DBLP successfully disambiguates me from another computer scientist that shares my first and last name.) A slightly less reliable method is to find the author's web page, or at least a web page at the author's department with their name on it, such as a faculty roster or a class syllabus.
But always remember that someone's *full professional name* may not be the same as their *full legal name* or their *full given name*. As username_1 points out, some authors consistently and deliberately publish under their initials to protect against [sexism](http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=5900) and other biases. The full professional names of these authors do not contain first names, only initials. A smaller number of authors (and [groups](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki) of [authors](http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Polymath_D/0/1/0/all/0/1)) publish under [pseudonyms](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/45185/pseudonyms-of-famous-mathematicians). Finally, authors from outside the US and Europe sometimes follow naming conventions that differ significantly from the modern European standard. (For example, [one of my department colleagues](http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/homes/madhu/) publishes under [what *appears* to be his last initial and first name](http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/m/Madhusudan:P=.html); the reality is [a bit more subtle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_name#Initials). He doesn't go by either of those names in person.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: In addition to other excellent answers, I would like to make a suggestion for you,
Find the author's e-mail address and then send an e-mail to ask the author's full name.
If the author replies, you get the answer. If the author never replies in a reasonable time period, find the author's professional name as suggested by others or use the name that appears in the paper you are citing.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/17 | 1,804 | 7,658 | <issue_start>username_0: I don't know how to put it. I have never published before. Previously my one paper was rejected, that was because the experiments were not ready and my advisor asked me to still submit it just to have practice.
Now, 6 months later, I am writing another paper (on a similar topic). I have done some experiments, some are still going on. My advisor had advised me that "even if your experiments are not complete you should still start writing the paper".
But I'm doing a lot of procrastination and I think I am scared of writing and possible rejection. I have done a lot of writing in other forms before, like blogging etc. But the thought of writing an academic paper with all the stringent rules (everything has to be clearly written, cited, nice flow of thoughts) is scary.
Please let me know how should one's mindset be while in the process of writing a paper.<issue_comment>username_1: If you didn't have any **scientific writing** class before, I think you should start buying a **book** about it, and read it.
There are many titles avilable.
If you get one, it can give you some **good advice** on how to write (good) scientific papers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two points in your question: writing a good paper and the fear of being rejected. For the first point, there is no miracle recipe, although there are some clear guidelines of what is expected to be in a paper. You can find many useful resources on the Internet on "how to write an academic paper", and you will have to select what suits you the best. In general, a good way is to understand what you like in your favorite papers, and reproduce the same scheme.
As for the fear of rejection, well, it's a bit cliché, but you just have to get over it. People get papers rejected all the time, even the top professors, sometimes it is fair, sometimes it is not. If you plan to pursue in the academic world, you should expect to get papers rejected until you retire. It's normal not to like it, but somehow, you have to deal with it.
Most of the time, when a piece of work reaches a good level of maturity, I build a quick "submission tree", that is, I look at which conferences I could submit the work, and the overlap between the notification dates and the submission dates. At the end, I have something like: I could submit to Conf1, and if it's rejected, I have one week to make it better and to submit to Conf2, and if it's rejected, ..., or I could submit to Conf3, and if it's rejected, I have two weeks to work more and submit to Conf4, etc. So, basically, the possibility of rejection is directly included in the submission strategy.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Here is a great book about scientific writing, that concentrate on the article structure and the writing process more than on the grammar per se:
["Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words" by <NAME>](http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6529.htm)
This book gives **good advices on the writing** *per se*, such as:
* What are the different section of a scientific article and what they should contain (e.g. how to choose a good title)
* Tips on how to improve the message you want to transmit in your article
* How to make a good poster/presentation
* ...
It also provides great advices on **how to build a good scientific question**. It explains how a good question can facilitate not only the writing process but also the overall research. For me it is actually the kind of book any young researcher should read even **before** starting their research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Like anything else in life, perform the task with the goal to succeed, and the likely outcome of failure.
Understand that rejection is all a part of the game. Very few people succeed more than they fail. As a matter of fact, upwards of 90% of all academic papers are rejected for one thing or another.
The most important thing is to keep track of mistakes that you've made with past academic papers. Write them down as bullet-points on a separate sheet of paper. Keep that paper right in front of you as you work on other academic papers to remind you of what **NOT** to do.
Practice makes perfect. If you're just starting out, it's likely that you're going to have many failures before you have a successful one.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: This is not really a complete answer, but it's too long for a comment, so here goes...
Remember that whatever you write now is not going be submitted. You don't need to overcome your fear quite yet because you're just putting words on the paper for your own sake. Just open your favorite text editor and write down everything you can think of. Forget about editing. You are just taking notes so that *you* can read it later and understand what you did and what you had on your mind. Don't filter yourself. You are just emptying your head to make room for new things. Write to forget.
Then, when you run out of things to write, go back and clean it up *a little* -- until you think of something else to write. Rinse and repeat.
As the content gradually becomes more complete, you will have more time and peace of mind to work on the quality of the writing and aligning it with all the best practices and advice and theory and rules of academic writing.
But for now, what's the first thing you think of that you've been working on in your project? Now open your text editor and write that thought down.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: One thing that might help with the fear of rejection is to view your paper as though it was a blog post. Obviously, you won't submit something in blog style to an academic journal, but it might help to think about why you blog. You have ideas and thoughts you think are important and you want to share them with a wide audience, who might be interested in your ideas or use them as a jumping-off point for something they want to do. The purpose of an academic paper is the same (well, in addition to the career benefits of publishing). You want to share what you're doing with people who will be interested in the results, and who might find inspiration for their own work in what you've done.
It might even help, as an exercise to get past writer's block, to write a blog post about your research. (You may not want or be able to actually publish it on your blog, but it might help your thought process either way.) What are you investigating, what are your methods, how is it going so far, etc.? You can then take some of that material, formalize the language, add the appropriate citations, and include it in the appropriate sections of your paper. But picturing your blog audience, rather than some journal committee, reading your first draft might take some of the pressure off.
Another thing I find helps me with fear of failure is to accept that the first draft of anything I write will be crappy and focus on getting ideas down and revising later. I also found, at least as an undergrad English major, that it's easier to just write late at night. Something about being tired takes the edge off my self-criticism and gets the ideas flowing. I describe it as my internal editor going to sleep by ten o'clock.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Rejection can be hard to handle, but a good motivator is to look at people who's work was rejected initially widely, but ended up being immensely popular and profitable. Ghostbusters was rejected by three movie studios. <NAME>'s manuscript for Dune was rejected by over 20 publishers. Lorenz's seminal paper on chaos was rejected several times if I remember correctly.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/18 | 1,796 | 7,642 | <issue_start>username_0: Currently I'm finishing my master program in computing. I need to decide between going to industry and starting a PhD programme. Having worked a bit with research and industry I prefer the former so far, however I wouldn't like to close my career paths.
Is it hard to resume education after working in industry (assuming 'ideal' conditions such as work related to chosen field, good master project from good university etc.)?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is it hard to resume education after working in industry (assuming 'ideal' conditions such as work related to chosen field, good master project from good university etc.)?
>
>
>
In short: **NO**.
I did exactly that and I think that was a great thing. Being in computer science, this gave me solid experience in software engineering and pragmatics of "real-world" solutions. The benefits I feel till now (after completing my doctoral studies and working as a relatively senior post-doc (3+ years after thesis defence) are these: 1) good feeling for what "societal" problems are and how does my research translate to practice (at least hypothetically, but in a plausible way) and 2) allows me to be involved in applied projects in any role from low-level programmer, through technical lead to project manager. All this is vital in writing project proposals and project execution. In a nutshell: experience in industry, when used wisely, can give you an "entrepreneurial" attitude, which definitely is an advantage over students who plunge to doctoral studies right after completing their master's degree. The only slight downside is that you might end up as one of the oldest PhD students in the group. But I never perceived it as a problem.
Finally, all the above applies to experience in European context (in particular: DE, NL, BE). I have no clue about the cultural issues regarding your question in other parts of the world.
*Later edit:*
When it comes to the emotional and lifestyle part of the decision, of course there are issues to consider. Going from an industrial position to doctoral studies is almost always a financial downgrade. Perhaps more in countries where a PhD student has a *student* status (US, UK), than in places which treat PhD students as university (public) employees (DE, NL), salaries tend to be higher in the latter. My own attitude, however, was this: since at that point I did not have kids yet, I always thought that should the life demand more money, or when I won't like the academic life, with the sound experience from industry I shouldn't have a problem going back any time. This definitely took a huge amount of pressure from my shoulders while pursuing my PhD, since I did not worry about my future (in career, or financial terms) - unlike my "purely academic" peers. Even till now, I feel confident (perhaps I fool myself) that should the academic path not work out in the next few years, it's not going to be the end of the world for me (again unlike for some of my peers). To sum up: *with the confidence that I am fit for industrial career, I can pursue my passion in academia, rather being under pressure to* **produce**. So I would add this as yet another benefit.
P.S.
To a more extreme note: I can point fingers to at least two people who after a long career in industry embarked on doctoral studies in their 50s and became successful researchers in their fields afterwards. Similarly, there are many people who after completing their PhD went to industry for awhile (5-10 years) and later came back to academia - though that feat seems to be harder to manage than the previous one. So everything is possible...
---
*Even later edit (8 years later):* I do no longer work in academia, at certain point 1) my family had enough of moving, 2) I ended up in a region with very competitive universities, 3) since I probably did not belong to the top notch, but let's say just slightly below, at certain point my funding dried out and I did not get a suitable professorship in that region. This led me to first seek job in industry again and later to start my own company/start-up trying to capitalize on all the scientific knowledge I collected. Retrospectively, my career as an engineer before joining academia turned out to be a great asset once again. I could claim very solid history in my CV and I was immediately hired to senior positions. Also, the academic training in research creativity turned out to be a very useful asset when I started my own company later on. All in all, I am happy about this career path. Maybe this later edit will inspire others too... Good luck!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: From an admissions standpoint getting into graduate school after a few years in industry is not much harder than going straight from undergraduate. Some undergraduate programs in the US offer 4+1 programs which make getting into a Masters program much easier, which in turn makes getting into a PhD program easier.
Becoming a student again after working in industry can be a hard emotional and psychological shift. Your pay will be cut in around half (maybe even more). In the US you will likely be expected to complete some more coursework. For some it is hard to get back into the coursework mindset after a few years absence: Assuming a linear scale, it is the difficulties you face every fall as a returning student multiplied by 10 (or so). It might even be an exponential scale. It can be hard. Being a grad student is nothing like being an undergraduate student nor is it like working in industry. The job of a grad student definitely doesn't end at 5 pm and tends not to have 2+ weeks of vacation. There is also considerable uncertainty associated with long term job prospects that are absent in industry work.
That said, those who love academics often find them selves out of sorts when working outside of academia and relish returning "home".
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One thing that hasn't been mentioned in the answers to this question pertain to **recommendation letters,** which are a key and important part of the application process. If you decide to leave academia for an extended period (more than a year or two), it would be wise to keep in touch with your advisor and some other professors so you don't surprise them with a "could write me a letter of recommendation for a PhD program" many years down the road. They need to be able to comment explicitly on your potential to do research, and (for U.S. universities) you'll need three solid letters to be competitive.
I might suggest asking for letters of recommendation now, and plan on contacting your letter-writers later to ask them to look back over the letters, and update if necessary. This way they aren't scratching their heads trying to (1) remember you, and (2) write a quality letter a few years after they knew you and your research.
By the way, I started a Master's/PhD program about 15 years after I got my Bachelor's (and another Master's in a different field), and finding appropriate and relevant letter-writers did prove a bit challenging. I ended up getting a letter from my then-boss (science department chair at the high school where I taught physics), a professor of education from my previous Master's degree, and a physics professor with whom I had been taking some "physics pedagogy" classes (and all for degree programs in computer engineering!). In the end, I successfully got accepted into many of the schools I applied to, but I'm sure my case would have been helped if I had letters that commented more specifically on my ability to research.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/18 | 1,582 | 6,372 | <issue_start>username_0: In epidemiology it is not uncommon to see papers written by a bunch of authors on behalf of a research group (say "the X research group"). See, for example, this paper (randomly chosen from pubmed):
>
> <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>; **on behalf of the PROCOLON research group**.
> *High prevalence of serrated polyposis syndrome in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programmes.* Gut. 2012 Sep 14.
>
>
>
My question is: are the members of the research group X (whose names and affiliations are usually reported in the Appendix at the end of the paper) considered as authors of the paper?
**Edit:** I am particularly interested to receive answers that apply specifically to epidemiology, but of course experiences from other fields are very welcome!<issue_comment>username_1: In particle physics (and we have some very long author lists) they are.
Authorship rules are generally set out in the collaboration's Memorandum of Understanding (whatever it is called) and can sometimes call for odd things such as a paper being credited to someone who didn't even know it was being written but whose work calibrating some systematic effect of a minor subsystem a decade ago was used in the paper. That happened to me once, I checked inSPIRE and discovered I had a new paper out. Turned out to be a nice one, too.
To avoid that many of these documents have a "recent membership" type of clause so that you have to have been an active member of the collaboration in the last (typically) year to be credited. "Active" is defined by things like sitting shifts, attending collaboration meetings, contributing institutional funds to the general pool or hardware to the experiment and so on.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll give my perspective, as an Epidemiologist:
It depends. Helpful, I know.
Often the reason there's a "on behalf of the X group" is that some small analysis has been pulled out of a larger study, and the named authors on the paper want to acknowledge that their results are the byproduct of a larger effort. A large clinical trial, or cohort trial for example, can spawn dozens of papers and secondary analysis done by doctoral students, small component research groups, etc.
For example, this paper is (I think) the result of the "Epi proColon" clinical trial currently being conducted by the manufacturer. It's a head to head comparison with 'FIT' - fecal immunochemical testing - to detect colon cancer. The paper you linked is an ancillary analysis of that, noting a particular finding that, while of interest to the field and clearly enough for a short paper, wouldn't ever make the "main" paper cut when the results of the clinical trial are published.
@Raphael has asserted that he thinks there should be a difference between "I turned a skrew" and "I wrote the paper". The problem for Epidemiology studies is that's often somewhat ambiguous. For example, many clinical sites are directed by people who don't really care about publications, being professional clinicians, but are still instrumental enough in the conducting of the study that they could arguably be included as authors. If you only had one of these, sure, toss it in as authorship. But what if you're running a multi-site clinical trial at ten sites? Do you include all ten? After all, they saw patients.
The "group" authorship is a useful way to acknowledge that. They can cite those papers on grant applications, "why should we continue to support your diagnostic lab" progress reports, etc. It's a compromise position for trying to tighten up who is an author while at the same time supporting large, collaborative science.
Those authorship acknowledgements also serve to make something "the official position of X study group". You often see that in vaccine trials and the like.
That being said, unless I was a named author on the paper, I likely wouldn't include it on my CV if I was anything but a very new investigator. But part of the point of these papers is that who is a named author is a rotating list. The Epidemiologists write their epidemiology papers, the clinicians write clinical papers, the lab people write lab papers, the biostatisticians write...you get the idea. So everyone publishes *named* in their niche, but the group effort is acknowledged for the entire productive output of the study.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I asked the guys at the library of my university about this issue and here is their reply. It looks like if I am member of the research group X, even if I am not among the names on the front page, it counts as a publication for me:
>
> According to the ICMJE guidelines on authorship and contributorship (http://www.icmje.org/ethical\_1author.html) you count as an author and will have the same rights and responsibilities regardless of your place in the author list.
>
>
> Therefore, you also have the right to verify the publication as yours in the bibliometric system.
>
>
>
Again, we are talking about epidemiological research here.
**Edit:** To me, Anonymous Mathematician is right and the answer I got was meant to be read as: "If you fulfil the 3 ICMJE conditions, it does not matter if your name is written only in the appendix and not on the front page. You're an author just the same".
**Edit 2:** This is the answer from the library guys after I asked for clarifications
>
> The part of the recommendations that you quote[\*] concern who should be considered to be the author on a paper when it's sent to the journal. All the persons in the author list, even the ones that are in a group listed in an appendix, should fulfill all three requirements. If they don't they should be listed in the acknowledgement instead of the author list.
>
>
> If this is not the case for your article, the responsible authors have not followed the guidelines.
>
>
>
[\*] This is what I quoted:
>
> "Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3."
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/18 | 266 | 1,057 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose a student complete 1 year of a masters degree (2 year program). She then decides to accept a job. Later on, she wants to apply to a PhD program. Would it look bad if she didn't finish the masters program?<issue_comment>username_1: I think doing a directly a PhD after a Bc is a very smart move.
Changing course depending on the current need is a valid decision and people should understand it. So I would not worry about how it will look.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: No, I do not think it would be a problem provided you work in a field close to your PhD area. If you get relevant experience, it helps to get into PhD.
Many university (at least in US) allow direct PhD admission for qualified BS students. So, if you are able to do some good work in your job, it can help you in applying for a PhD.
The reason I am emphasizing "relevant experience" since otherwise you **may** have to justify quitting the Masters program. The admission managers/professors may tend to suspect your staying for PhD.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/18 | 1,016 | 4,425 | <issue_start>username_0: As an academic, one has to publish. Often, an article is drafted, and you need feedback of a colleague. I see that quite often some perspective articles are often written by long-term collaborating pairs of authors.
What are some strategies people use to get feedback on their articles (outside of immediate boss; and in the case that none of the friends in the field of work in the specific domain of the article, and one needs specific (not general) feedback)?
How do you approach a colleague to simply read your article. Or do you just mention it at a conference to the most suitable colleague - would you like to read an article and give me feedback? How do handle the co-authorship or acknowledgement? Do you establish the limits at the "approach time"?
What are some strategies to establish a "publishing" duos (buddies).<issue_comment>username_1: When I have a manuscript nearly ready to submit, I send it (by e-mail) to colleagues who I think would be interested in it. I politely ask them to read it and send me any comments they have. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't; it's understood that there is not an obligation. Of course, some of them send me their manuscripts too, and they're more likely to read mine if I have read and commented on theirs.
The colleagues I send the paper to (usually about 2-4 in number) may include:
* Senior people who have mentored me
* Past coauthors and collaborators
* People I don't know but whose work is essential to that in my manuscript
People in the first two categories are usually willing to assist based on our existing relationship; those in the last category are generally pleased to see their work being cited and built on.
I don't usually need very specific feedback at this point in the process. If I was concerned, say, about the correctness of some part of the work, I would have worried about that long before I wrote the article. Occasionally I may have a specific question about, e.g., suitability of the manuscript for a particular journal. In that case, I would send the article to one of the editors of the journal or to a colleague who often publishes in that journal, and ask specifically.
Any colleagues who provide substantial feedback will be acknowledged at the end of the paper. Providing this kind of feedback certainly wouldn't qualify one for co-authorship.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Apart from the excellent answer by David, I guess that any (experienced) academic knows that this job has a long memory and it's a non-zero-sum game, so the more you give to others the better you are perceived. So my answer would include also a pro-active behaviour in reviewing papers for others too. This way you'll learn more about writing styles, will be perceived as a contributor to someone else's research, and will be more likely to receive feedback from others
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Internet is there for us to help and collaborate. [Banyan](https://banyan.co) recently launched a public beta version. It is for "sharing, collaborating & publishing research".
Personally I think this product, or a similar product that applies open source idea (which is working pretty good for software development) into research, can both help with getting feedback of an ongoing work and establishing a long-term co-authorship as well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Unfortunately, an academic researcher either exists in the echo chamber of his lab (specialists in their field), or among competitors, or among the lay public. None of these are ideal arenas to form "publishing" duos (buddies). One would always want the upper hand or to be placed in a more prominent spot in the author list. In this way, research is often observed to be siloed or split off into various factions. The academic publishing machine pairs you up with 3 often anonymous people you have little influence in choosing to critically review your manuscript but of course negative feedback that is not interactive nor a discussion but a letter in response to your letter as it existed so many years ago. If rejected, you can use the reviews to improve your paper, but of course you have burned the bridge of being able to submit that topic to that particular journal again. The concept of a publishing buddy would exist in the balance of a knowledgeable field specialist and generalist.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/09/18 | 694 | 3,032 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it possible to be enrolled at a Masters program at one university and a PhD program in another university?
Is one allowed to do this? Or is this not possible in general?<issue_comment>username_1: Maybe, but why? Different topics?
In any case, you'd have to check the rules of both universities.
As a supervisor/employer of PhD students, I would not want my student doing this. A PhD is a full-time job, requiring full-time commitment. Financing is scarce and I wouldn't want to waste it on someone who is not fully committed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You should never, ever try anything like this without explicit written permission from the administrations of both universities, from at least the department chair level, if not the dean. I once knew someone who was enrolled in two Ph.D. programs, and it completely derailed his career when this was discovered, even though his advisor had told him it was OK.
As username_1 points out in his answer, funding is a big problem. It's much worse than it might appear from the outside: it's obviously questionable to accept payment from both universities for doing full-time work, but in fact this can be a serious problem even if one (or both!) of them is not paying you in any direct way. At least in the US, there are often payments being made behind the scenes within the university. This may sound like "funny money", since it just involves moving money between accounts within the same institution, but it really makes a difference in what departments are allowed to do, so they take it very seriously. (For example, at my university, the administration charges the department tens of thousands of dollars for every enrolled graduate student, to cover tuition. Sometimes this comes from grant funding, and sometimes from general departmental funds supplied by the administration. If a student accepts an offer of admission without actually putting in the expected time or energy because of other academic commitments, then that's tantamount to a serious budget decrease. That money comes from somewhere, either a grant or the department, and whoever spent it will be very unhappy. It's not as bad as stealing, but it will be treated somewhat similarly by the university.)
Anyway, there are many different ways universities are run, so it's possible that you'll find a way to make this work. But don't try it without making sure you have written proof of official approval (keeping in mind that individual faculty members are in many cases not authorized to give approval).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It is possible. Many PhD programs don't require a masters, just an undergrad, so it is definitely possible, but as mentioned, why would you want to do that? Is it in complementary subjects that you plan to you later on? It would be awfully hard to do well in both programs. They are much more demanding than undergrad. I would suggest first doing the masters and then moving to the PhD, but it is your choice.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/19 | 793 | 3,120 | <issue_start>username_0: Lots of people start PhD programs, but far fewer finish (in some programs the drop-out rate is 50% or higher). Some people are motivated to get a PhD by: wanting a **job in academia**, wanting a **job in industry**, **personal pride**, or simply a **lack of direction** and an aptitude for the field of their PhD program.
Have you noticed that people with certain motivations are more likely to finish their PhD than others? If so, which reasons correlate positively with success? Conversely, do you have warnings for someone considering starting a PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: I won't tell you what are and aren't good reasons for getting a PhD. However, to get a PhD, **you must stay remarkably determined for a minimum of 5 to 6 years**. If you cannot, you will quit. Earning a PhD is hard. When I earned mine, it was **easily the hardest thing I had ever done**.
During your PhD, you work *long hours*, for a *low salary*, with *little respect*, and *bleak job prospects*. Most PhD students are at least fairly smart and/or moderately hard workers. Nearly all of them could make more money with less effort elsewhere.
**So, why get a PhD?** You need to find *your own* compelling reason. I **couldn't imagine *not* studying math**. Undoubtedly, I would be studying it now, even if no one would pay me. I'd never cared too much about money (easier to say when you're in your 20s and single). I was far from balanced, so long hours didn't bother me. I really loved teaching (and still do), and after working with high school kids, I decided I'd much prefer college. So I decided I'd be a math professor. That was my vision, **what I clung to in the midst of the storm**. And it worked, *eventually*. Your story will be different. But it must be just as compelling *to you*, or you likely won't make it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: By far the most successful students will be those who are genuinely interested in the research they are performing. They will be the ones who will put in the effort to think of new research avenues, create and follow-through with collaborations, put in extra thought do their analysis techniques, and *do it all with good spirits*. Other students can (or more often, won't) do all this work, but they will definitely not do it with the same level of enthusiasm, which will over time make the work less and less enjoyable, and thus more likely to be abandoned.
So, to answer the question, the motivation most conducive to finishing is the motivation to perform the research you are working on. If the student is motivated by anything other than the research itself, there will be a definite waning of enthusiasm—with all the collateral damage that entails—as the student comes to realize that doing PhD research involves a whole lot of *research*.
Regarding warnings, I offer the following: If you're starting a PhD for any reason other than "whoa boy I LOVE doing this stuff", the next few years will involve a lot of work that you will probably not enjoy at the outset, and progressively dislike more and more as the years tick on.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/19 | 993 | 4,252 | <issue_start>username_0: Assuming the following scenario:
Person A is a recognized senior researcher, and Person B is an enthusiastic junior researcher. Both of them have been working more or less equally on a research project and are interested in submit the results of the project to a particular venue. Based on the report written by Person B, Person A has written a paper (PA) to be submitted to the venue. Person B doesn’t like the style and some contents of PA, so he makes comments to Person A, who them modifies PA. Person B still doesn’t like PA, so writes a separate paper PB. Since PA and PB haven’t been published, there are citations between them.
At this point, Person A submits PA, which list authors as "Person A & Person B", and Person B submits PB, which list authors as "Person B & Person A."
1. Is it appropriate to submit PA and PB?
2. What would be your impression if you were part of the venue’s committee?
3. As reviewer, what would be your impression about reviewing two different papers about the same work for the same venue?
4. Any additional consideration?<issue_comment>username_1: Most venues forbid simultaneous submissions, or overlapping submissions. For instance, in the call for papers of [ACM CCS 2012](http://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2012/cfp.shtml):
>
> Submitted papers must not substantially overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal, conference or workshop. Simultaneous submission of the same work is not allowed. Note that submitted papers cannot be withdrawn from the process after the first phase reviews are received by authors.
>
>
>
So, in order to answer your question, the main problem is determining the overlap between PA and PB. If it's substantial (only some elements of style change, minor comments), then it should be forbidden.
On the other hand, if the papers are different enough (for instance, PA presents a more theoretical approach and PB a more practical description, with a case study), then there is no problem. That being said, both papers must be self-contained, and cannot rely on the acceptance of the other, unless they are both also published as technical reports (or equivalent).
To make things explicit, if I were a reviewer of a member of the PC, and if I were to think that the overlap between the two papers is substantial, I would recommend rejecting both.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You cannot submit to papers on the same data and that is what this sounds like. It doesn't sound like paper A is the data and paper B is a model.
I would suggest Person B concede to the wishes of Person A and then never collaborate with Person A again.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You cannot submit both papers. As others have pointed out, most venues explicitly forbid simultaneous submission of substantially overlapping papers. The answer to your first three questions is the same: **Immediate rejection**.
In fact, I would go further: **Neither PA nor PB can be submitted alone.** It is unethical to submit a paper without the explicit consent of all authors, because authorship implies endorsement of and responsibility for the content of the paper. On the other hand, it is unethical to revoke authorship from someone who has made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work. The two authors must work out their editorial differences, like grown-up professional adults, before they can submit anything.
If they can't agree on what to submit, then tough noogies — no paper.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: By venue, do you mean a conference? Depending on the conference, you could certainly focus on different aspects of the same study, or different (but not contradictory) conclusions from the same data (some datasets generate dozens of papers!). There could be a bit of overlap, i.e. in the introduction, but not too much. I'd say the most important thing is to be clear and honest about what you want to present. But if you have together done a large project and are going to write a peer-reviewed paper about it, I don't see any problem in presenting different aspects of the study at the same conference.
Of course, they should not be exactly the same.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/19 | 899 | 3,902 | <issue_start>username_0: I see places like Coursera, Udacity and EdX offer certificates upon successful completion of course work. Also most of the people doing recorded teaching at these places are famous and well known professors.
So if someone mentions those kind of course certificates in CV or application material for grad school, does it have a significant value for the applicant?
Do you consider these kind of certificates at the same level with a grade on an academic transcript?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> So if someone mentions those kind of course certificates in CV or application material for grad school, does it have a significant value for the applicant?
>
>
>
They are better than nothing, but it's unlikely that they would have significant value. Courses are only a small part of what matters for graduate admissions, and elementary or low-level courses matter the least of all. Only a fraction of Coursera/Udacity courses are at a high enough level to matter, and even those courses aren't likely to make much of a difference.
I would not recommend devoting any time to online courses for the purpose of graduate admissions. If they are teaching something you really want to understand and have no better opportunity to learn, then that's a good reason, but the learning will have to be its own reward.
>
> Do you consider these kind of certificates at the same level with a grade on an academic transcript?
>
>
>
I'd look at a certificate of completion for an online course the same way I'd look at a traditional course taken pass/fail (i.e., without a grade). It's evidence that you have done something, which shows some level of motivation and energy, but it's not evidence that you actually learned much in the process.
However, there's a bigger issue than grades here. Ultimately, good grades don't mean that much: standards vary dramatically, the ceiling is rarely high enough to distinguish between excellent students, and even if the ceiling is high enough it's not clear that this is a meaningful comparison. Letters of recommendation are crucial for supplying the information grades alone can't supply, and this is something MOOCs are currently unable to help with.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I see these places offer a certificate upon succesful completion of course work.
>
>
>
I agree with username_1. There is a difference between completion and mastery. Graduate schools need to know that you have **mastered** the prerequisite material. In the future, courses like these may count for something to graduate schools if they demonstrate and certify rigor and mastery.
Currently, these courses are targeting the Professional Development market. Many industries required or encourage their employees to further their education. For professional development, usually **completion** of the course/webinar/workshop/whatever is all that is tracked. A future employer may care that you have taken 2 or 3 MOOCs in accounting, but an MBA program would probably disregard them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You do realize that MOOC's provide the full syllabus of their courses, and generally give a percentile ranking of the students in comparison to students from all over the world.
I'd be more skeptical about a degree/transcript from a university I have heard little about than a MOOC who's syllabus I can consider and depth which I can evaluate, in addition to the obvious motivation for learning FACT.
In addition most MOOC's clearly mention about the amount of grades they require from the students to get a Certificate of Completion.
70 % was the standard for Most Coursera courses that I completed/audited.
In addition, if Coursera is asked, they can provide (in the future) to employers information about how a student develops his code and how frequently he changes his code before committing, etc.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/20 | 823 | 3,597 | <issue_start>username_0: What do different people in the department expect from a postdoc?
By different people I mean the advisor, graduate students and PhD students.
I know it mainly depends on the job description but there are few basic things that a postdoc must be expected to do. How aggressive (proactive) must one be? This question is important since a postdoc cannot just wait for the adviser to give him/her inputs. Rather the postdoc must take the project(s) as another PhD research of his own but be completely accountable to the adviser in terms of what he/she is doing and how is he/she doing that.
The above are my thoughts. My question is divided into the following sub-parts:
* What would you as a professor expect from your postdoc?
* What preparation one must do to rise to the expected level?
* Is the preparation merely restricted to having sound academic record and experience?<issue_comment>username_1: You'll very quickly learn that being an academic involves more than just writing research papers. Your time as a postdoc is when you can start learning about these other aspects, while building your own profile.
A postdoc needs to do the following:
* **Build a publication record**. This will involve both what you are paid to do and your own line of research.
* **Get involved with supervising students**. Help with the PhDs in the lab, and get involved in supervising masters students.
* **Get involved with obtaining funding**. This can either be by helping your employer or (ideally) obtaining your own funding.
* **Build an international reputation**.
* **Start collaborating with external parties**.
* **Gain some teaching experience**. *This is absolutely crucial if you want a faculty position.*
* **Learn how to manage projects and a lab**. This includes overseeing the progress of projects, allocating your time (and others), presenting results at meetings and writing deliverables. If you are in a lab setting, you will need to learn how to fix/calibrate/maintain critical equipment and software so that you can start your own lab some day, and you will need to become proficient in teaching more junior members on how to use that equipment.
* **Start to devise a strategic research plan**. While it is fun to do opportunistic research, solving a problem that comes along or investigating any idea that pops into your head, a better long term strategy is to formulate an interesting long term research plan and follow it, building result upon result.
Be as proactive as humanly possible, without being annoying. Talk to everyone in the department, especially people whose research interests are close to your. Go to conferences and sit down and work with interesting people (not necessarily the superstars).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let me add one item that username_1 omitted, which I think is actually the most important:
* **Separate your research reputation from your advisor's.** Congratulations! You have enough of an independent research record to land a postdoctoral position. Unfortunately, that reputation is almost certainly deeply entangled with your PhD advisor's; deep down, many people in your research community still wonder if (or simply assume that) you've just been riding your advisor's coattails. Your primary job is to convince them otherwise. Do not work with your advisor, and do not work in the same subsubsubfield as your PhD thesis. Make a name for yourself as a truly independent researcher and scholar.
And a secondary corollary:
* **Do not just ride your supervisor's coattails.**
Upvotes: 6 |
2012/09/21 | 379 | 1,665 | <issue_start>username_0: I have looked at a number of academic resumes to get a feeling for what people expect. I see that the number of referees that people give at the bottom of their resume varies quite a bit.
My question is whether it is essentially always better to provide more referees or whether one should rather stick to a maximum of say 4 ?<issue_comment>username_1: I assume you are creating your `CV` for some `application` (job or graduate studies). I understand that having three to four good referees is good enough. You need not provide more than that. I am particularly speaking about the academia in US and I believe it would be different elsewhere (e.g. UK).
Of course you may put different referees according to the requirement. I mean you may need to create different `CVs` for different occasions. Some referees would be better able to acknowledge your work for a given situation. For example you may need to take a `recommendation letter` from a (for example) Mathematics teacher when applying for `graduate studies` in Math.
In fact I have also seen that many people do not put the references. In an application process, they are required to separately provide the names and contacts of the referees.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: For entry level professorships I have had requests for between 2 (second tier school with no established research groups) and 5 (first class research group at a R1 in a desirable climate), with 3 being by far the most common. Adds requesting high numbers are often seeking stars and will often state that they will consider tenured placement for qualified applicants.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/23 | 798 | 3,394 | <issue_start>username_0: Are MIT courses much different from MIT OpenCourseWare? I am curious, because as a high schooler, I have some intent to study from MIT OpenCourseWare.
Will this allow me to be more comfortable if I am admitted to MIT?
Also, how are MIT courses so different from those at other places? I heard that these courses are hard..<issue_comment>username_1: MIT OCW doesn't offer "courses". It offers "courseware" — basically textbooks with videos.
Real MIT courses have live instructional staff who answer questions, run recitation sections, and offer feedback (in particular, grades) on your solutions to the homework and exam problems. Real MIT courses have deadlines that force (well, encourage) you to actually work on the course material regularly. Real MIT courses also have a community of other students, all following the same lock-step schedule, that can work together to develop ideas, internal feedback, social outlets, and later professional contacts. Real MIT courses give you an official record from MIT of your performance in the class.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In counterpoint to username_1's answer, let me also indicate that the materials used in OpenCourseWare have actually been used in the indicated courses. The assignments and exams do correspond to actual materials used at MIT. So OCW courses can give you a sense of the difficulty and workload of MIT courses, but, as username_1 indicates, the experience overall cannot be the same.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As an addendum to other useful information in answers and comments: it's not that MIT or other elite places have some sort of monopoly on *information*, even if one means bleeding-edge stuff. It may be true that the high-end instructors at elite places are in personal possession of bleeding-edge information, so can put other things in that context. And, indeed, those seemingly subtle aspects can matter enormously.
The genuine action-point is that, by merely "looking at" or having a "participant certificate" in regard to any discussion, one does *not* certify that one is quasi-effective in use of the ideas... and so on. That is, having paid admission to watch any sort of professional sport, and managing to understand the scoring, one has really no certification that one oneself can *play* that sport at a professional level.
Sure, if one hasn't ever *seen* experts play the sport, one is bereft. But, still, just having seen the Kentucky Derby many times doesn't mean that one can run a 3-minute mile.
The *positive* recommendation from me is that one probably does want significant contact with people who have made/done significant, genuine mathematics. Otherwise, if one is hoping to make research contributions, unless one is The Chosen One, one is stuck in a position exactly analogous to trying to make money on the stock market with just the same info that everyone else has (i.e., no insider info, unlike members of Congress are allowed to use...).
That is, it's not that MIT has better info about entry-level things, it's that the faculty there have access to, and are creators of, high-end, bleeding-edge stuff. As are certain people around the world.
Perhaps surprisingly, then, the point is not the "program", but the *people*. Their notes can certainly be useful, perhaps incredibly so, but it's still not the *live* thing.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/24 | 1,468 | 6,325 | <issue_start>username_0: While pursuing a PhD in an experimental field, one usually researches a given topic and conducts experiments that are rather closely related to this topic and one another. I imagine this specialization can be beneficial as one attains expertise in the research field and can work in a timely and focused manner.
However, I can also imagine that this specialization may make changing your area of research more difficult when applying for positions as a post-doc. Therefore, I am wondering about the advantages and disadvantages of researching scientific questions one is interested in, but that are irrelevant to ones PhD thesis on the side.<issue_comment>username_1: The main downside is that it takes a significant amount of effort to gain enough specialization in a given topic to be proficient enough to perform useful experimentation. Given that a a graduate student you're spending almost all your time familiarizing yourself with the topic you're actually performing research on, it would be very difficult to become an expert in an area unrelated to your work.
That being said, many research topics are very conducive to multi-disciplinary research. To use myself as an example, I usually tell people that I'm a cross between a neuroscientist, behavioral psychologist, signal processing engineer, and statistician. A colleague of mine started his research examining how to use the lungs as a power source for an implantable device, and ended up publishing a significant paper in the field of organic chemistry, fairly unrelated to his intended research. Becoming an expert in your own field enables you to research some pretty interesting and diverse topics.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The main downside is the opportunity cost of time spent being "unfocused".
Accordingly, I think the relative merit of pursuing ancillary research topics hinges on how much time you want to spend on your PhD. The road to tenure is long and so there are strong arguments for starting on it early. A PhD is **just the beginning**. However, later on, I do not think one can drop a side-project with as few consequences as during graduate school.
You should also distinguish between the same research that goes by different labels. Different fields call the same thing different names, which can make it seem as if someone has more varied interests than they do.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I can see pros and cons to this. The pros are obvious and are just like you state: you will be gaining specific expertise, you'll be doing truly independent research , you'll be pioneering.
I would point out one major con though: if you do work that none of your professors are "in charge" of there is a good chance they will act like little babies and discredit, ignore, or openly assault your work! It happened to me.
I had my master's thesis in Scientific Visualization, which was an already funded idea hosted by my advisor. Unfortunately it wasn't a very popular idea so a) it wasn't that interesting, and b) I couldn't get much attention from my advisor. But then my friend, who was doing research in Computational Biology came up with a really great idea for a collaborative visualization project and I started working on that in parallel. It turned out to be really cool, I got a poster accepted to a major conference, and my friend actually benefitted from the output.
My advisor, however, was just pissed off. He didn't give a shit that I was doing my own creative work. He just saw that I wasn't playing his game. I actually got in trouble for this. I tried to appeal to my team of 3 professors who were my secondary advisors but they reamed me too. One of them said "well none of us know if your work is actually quality. Anyone can get a poster published." Mind you out of the entire group of 12 students who submitted work to the conference only 3 posters were chosen and two of them were mine.
So the short of it is: academics are like little boys tied to their mother's apron strings. Don't expect them to support you in being truly creative. If you follow this path then make sure you either convince a professor that it was his
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I did several unrelated projects during my PhD. Here are my thoughts:
You need to publish in order to graduate and find good postdoc opportunities. So if you have three unrelated projects/collaborations, but all close to publication stage, then just plan your time wisely and go for it.
Otherwise, if you have several unrelated projects, that are super cool, but you have different PIs guiding it, and it's all in the troubleshooting/design stage, you have set yourself for a 7+ PhD gig. You will need to report to each PI, show good progress, all while switching rapidly between projects. All doable and rewarding, but in the end, you will need to publish them, and its gonna be hard.
Another detail to consider is if your committee will require your dissertation chapters to form one cohesive story. Some departments require it, in which case you can end up with a lot of data you cannot use in your thesis.
So in retrospect, I wish my "eyes were not bigger than my stomach", but I did have fun doing the other projects, and I found what I want to do for my postdoc through trying different things. I am finishing in my 5th year with 3 publications, but so burned out :(.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: **TLDR:** You will probably become a better problem solver if you do it, but there is a chance that it won't count into the formal requirements for graduation!
---
In general I would say it is **not** a good idea to research multiple independent topics when you are a PhD candidate, especially if your PhD is supposed to be really narrow. The risk is that you will become distracted from the main focus of your project. Your main focus will then suffer and even if you actually do find results in the topics too far away from the project you are part of those are likely to be judged to not fit the project. Those results may impress other people for example in various industries and maybe academics too, but maybe they will not help you pass the formal requirements for graduation!
---
( Everything I've written is assuming you value graduation above all else, of course. )
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/24 | 1,142 | 4,729 | <issue_start>username_0: My question is along the lines of [How do professors usually discover "new" research interests?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1449/how-do-professors-usually-discover-new-research-interests) but more to do with "HOW"? The above question deals with how professors discover new areas, my question is once a professor or a grad student has found an interesting lead, how do they pursue it?
Consider Prof. X who is a mathematician and just talked to his old MS student who is now working on Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence. He speaks to the student for 20 minutes about how is applying math to AI. **Where does he go from here?**
Does he:
1. Go to Wikipedia/Encyclopaedia to get a rough overview of the subject.
2. Search for papers.
3. Search for a good book to read.
4. Speak to someone in his institution who works on AI and ask them for reading references.
5. Something else?
**How does a professor make sure he gets the right resource considering his expertise in some subject? For instance, the professor would definitely want a book which starts from a primer on Linear Algebra**<issue_comment>username_1: "All of the above"... but maybe not wanting a book that started from a primer on Linear Algebra. (Probably the latter remark in the question is a result of a misunderstanding of some sort.) In short, all possible sources are used. I have little interest in connections to textbooks (which typically feel an obligation to include busywork exercises, etc. and express reverence to the founders of the subject by recapitulating "troubles of the old times" (which have been solved, often).)
The operational point is that one *skims* all these resources, looking for key points, rather than reading ploddingly, slavishly. I look to be *persuaded*... or, equally interestingly, to be persuaded that the people doing the thing don't adequately understand it so as to be able to explain it simply. Quasi-ironically, the latter affords more possibilities for making genuine progress. :)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The answer can best be understood in terms of the intended goal of the researcher making the switch. When moving to a new field, one is typically doing so because something they had heard/read/seen about that field was professionally interesting to them—i.e., they heard of an interesting research field or specific research problem—and they are considering trying to work on that problem themselves.
Given that framework, our researcher will learn everything they can about the research question that they can, using whatever tools make the most sense in a given field of research. In neuroscience, I'd start with recent review articles and gradually move towards more and more specific journal papers. If the field is entirely new to me, I'd probably try to find a good overview online somewhere before reading the review papers. I might try books, but they take too long to read, and will likely contain far too much information that I *don't* care about and too little that I *do*. If I had a colleague in the field I might ask them to point me to some good resources, and maybe discuss the field with me over coffee.
In the end, you want to be versed in the field enough to (1) understand the problem that interested you and (2) be able to formulate your own related problem for you to work on. Any resources that can help you achieve that goal can and should be consulted.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I've actually done this 2 times. First going from pure theory to 50/50 theory/experiment, and then switching departments. I'm a physicist but I think the following observations may hold generally:
1) don't quit your "day job". I.e., work gradually into the new field. I wouldn't take on any grad students in the new field until you were really sure.
2) start going to meetings in the new field. talk to the experts, get to know them.
3) if you have a sabbatical coming up, try to do it at a place that is a real focus of your new field. In my case I did a sabbatical at a place that allowed me to do theory and experiment.
4) some people switch fields to go after funding. I don't recommend this. If you have a real passion for something, find some way to fund it. who knows what the fashion will be in 10 years.
Finally, an observation. I found that colleagues tend to put you in a box and 20 years from now they'll think your doing the same old thing. I know very few academics who have worked in the same area their whole careers. No one expects this and it would be pretty boring if you ask me. Switching departments is harder, but switching fields I think is pretty easy if you're motivated.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/25 | 832 | 3,519 | <issue_start>username_0: For a new project I want to compile a literature review to determine the state of the art and possible approaches to start with.
Last time I adhered to the following scheme, but it felt very inefficient.
1. Search scholar.google with relevant keywords. (3-20 papers)
2. Read this first set of papers and look for main publications most of these papers link to.
3. Use scholar and webofknowledge to collect all papers, which cite the main publications. (30-200 papers)
4. Go through all the papers ordered by assumed importance or newness and note used methods, results, strengths and weaknesses in a spreadsheet till running out of time or motivation.
What system do you have to do literature review and what would you recommend me?
**[update]**
After posting my question I found [Am I reading enough of the scientific literature? Should I read for breadth or depth?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50/am-i-reading-enough-of-the-scientific-literature-should-i-read-for-breadth-or-d?rq=1) which talks, as I see it, more about how to read scientific publications.
I am more interested in advice on how to make sure one has found all the important publications and how to prioritize one's reading list. One advice I got some time ago was to start with new publications fist and then to work yourself back in time. Is this a good advice? How do you do it?<issue_comment>username_1: If you know that the relevant literature is mostly in one community, then the approach you've described works fairly well. It may be "inefficient" if there are lots of related papers, but (to use computer science jargon), it's efficient in the size of the output :)
I have found that finding a **recent** survey helps a lot, because it taxonomizes the literature and provides many backward pointers (as well as forward pointers via papers that cite it).
But ultimately, the best test is if you start coming across the same papers in references over and over again. At that point you can feel a little more confident that you're converging.
Some specific tips:
* Look carefully at **how** papers are cited. That provides clues on how to prioritize your searching.
* Learn how to skim a paper really quickly to see its main contribution, which will indicate whether it merits further interest.
* If certain researchers keep popping up, go to their websites to see if other papers might be relevant (or if they have a review article that Google search didn't reveal)
* Look at venues where papers are typically getting published, and look at recent issues of those journals/conferences to see if you've missed something.
Apart from that, going across communities is trickier, and often requires some luck, or the right keywords. Again, some knowledge of the researchers in the area helps: odds are that if the topic spans disciplines, at least some of the researchers involved also span disciplines and can point (via their work) to new paths to explore (see the above note about conferences)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: More of a tip than a full answer but worth adding non-the-less: try starting off by reading 'review articles' rather than 'papers of original research'.
The advantages of doing this are
* They provide an historical overview in most cases, useful for getting context
* They are more accessible (in terms of readability)
* They are longer, containing more information, with more thorough explanations
* They tend to be less biased
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/09/25 | 386 | 1,755 | <issue_start>username_0: Being somewhat familiar with referencing of academic papers as a source, it has struck me as odd why authors would leave out some date on their paper. The date could be the day the author completed the paper on or submit date or published date etc.
Certainly it would be of help to others who would want to reference their work?
So, does anyone know if there is a specific reason why certain authors leave out a date on their papers?<issue_comment>username_1: There is often a substantial delay between when the author finishes a paper and when the paper is actually published. The author may not be totally aware of the publishing date. This is why the authors do not include the date.
The date is generally found in/on the book/proceedings that the paper is published in. This is the date that should be used for referencing a paper.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Re completion date: because updating it manually every time you modify a draft is time-consuming and error-prone, and TeX does not really offer an easy out-of-the-box automated solution (mainly because of its inherent limitations as a programming language).
If you use a preprint repository such as arXiv, you have a submission date there, and that is good enough for most purposes.
Some journals list submission, acceptance and publication date, but that is a decision of the publisher, not of the author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Typically the date information is added by the journal.
In my experience most of the published work that is out there without dates comes from conference proceedings, where this information is given on the front cover but not on individual papers. I agree that it is a problem.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/26 | 2,781 | 11,474 | <issue_start>username_0: Are there any age limits (formal, informal, or guidelines) that schools use when deciding to accept someone into a PhD program? I'm most curious about the upper age limits. For example, will most schools accept someone in their 40's? How about their 50's?<issue_comment>username_1: I would imagine most institutions would consider it discriminatory to judge on age, and in some places it would just be illegal. The real consideration is always whether the prospective candidate has a reasonable chance of success. Having appropriate education, or a reasonable substitute is of course the main criterion, though demonstrating research-level ability always helps (research publications etc.).
Personally I have seen PhD candidates of all ages. There's some skew to the distribution across disciplines (business and history for example often have higher proportions of older doctoral candidates than, say, mathematics), but this seems to be more a socio-cultural thing than any institutional influence.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: At the university where I work, there are no limitations or guidelines on appropriate age ranges for a Ph.D., and I'm sure this is true throught the US since age discrmination would be illegal. In practice, we see the opposite problem regarding age: the application rate in mathematics is very low after the mid-20's, although we would be happy to consider older candidates. It may be that they just aren't interested in applying (if you have a family or are used to earning a high salary, then going back to school may be difficult or unappealing; furthermore, everyone is exposed to enough math in childhood that perhaps relatively few people first discover a fascination with it at an older age). However, I fear that there are people who would really like to go back and get a Ph.D., but who do not apply, because they believe they are too old to do mathematics research or because they do not believe they will be admitted. That would be sad, since I've known several extremely successful mathematicians who entered grad school well beyond the typical age.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: It really depends on which institute you are attending. I did my undergrad at UC Irvine where it was very rare to see older grad students. Most grad students at UCI were accepted directly from their undergraduate programs but at the University of Nevada School of Medicine (UNSOM) where I am doing my PhD, most students have a few years of experience and so are a few years older ~30+. It never hurts to call the program head directly.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I recall one case at Ohio State where someone who had retired from the US Army at age 55, then entered graduate school in mathematics.
Ohio State also had a program where tuition is waived for anyone over age 65 (or was it 60?). I recall a few such people taking a graduate course in math, but none working on a Ph.D.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I know this is an older question but recently similar questions have popped up. So, I'll give my input as a recently graduated PhD.
**My answer**: It's never late to do a PhD, but you need to be well informed what you are signing up for. I explain.
**Long hours**. During my PhD I needed to work crazy hours. It's a creative process that can consume all your time. I was thinking about my work day and night. It's easy to say that I'll work 8-5 on my PhD, but I don't know any PhD student that managed to do that. You can count for lost weekends, lost vacations, sleepless nights before the big conference deadline, etc. Are you ready to pull all-nighters and push yourself to the limit (mentally and physically)? Is your family ready to accept this state of living? Will your wife/children (if any) show understanding?
**Not well paid**. Then, it's the financial part. Some PhD positions are well-paid, some positions (e.g. in most UK unies) you just survive, and other are unpaid. At the age of XX, you are probably used to some specific quality of life. Are you willing to sacrifice this for doing a PhD? If the position is paid, then does the salary cover your current expenses? If it's unpaid, do you have the financial resources to support yourself and your family for 4-5 years?
**Background knowledge**. How up-to-date are you with the current developments in your field? Many people start their PhD right after the master studies, thus they are in the studying mood and usually are up to date. You might be required to take some of those graduate level courses. These assume some background knowledge. Do you have / remember that? Especially in technical fields, you need to keep updating all the time...
**After the PhD**. Then it's the reason. Why do you want to do a PhD? Is it for the knowledge? After the PhD, what do you dream to do? If you plan for an academic career, you should know that you'll have to start from a lower position (postdoc, lecturer, etc.) and work your way through the ranks. Early-stage academic positions demand a huge amount of time. If you want to go for industry positions with PhD requirements, they usually have an experience requirement, so be prepared to start low.
**My experiences**. I believe age by itself is not a problem. I've had a colleague in his 40s doing a PhD and he did an excellent job. On the other hand another student in his 50s that gave up after 6 months. His computer skills were very bad and it was clear that he lacked (or had forgotten) key knowledge in the field (electrical engineering). Although we all tried to help him out, the pressure was too high and at the end of the day, you have to carry your own weight.
Good luck in whatever you decide!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: This is a slightly different view of some issues raised in a [recent answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/56896/10220).
That answer stated some of the disadvantages of being a mature PhD student, but missed several major advantages that mature students can have, especially if they have worked in their field of study.
I worked in the computer industry from 1970 to 2002, when I left to become a CS graduate student, completing my PhD in 2009.
**Long hours.** The article asked "Are you ready to pull all-nighters and push yourself to the limit (mentally and physically)?". I was definitely not ready to pull all-nighters, and never needed to. I had spent decades on projects far more complicated than one student's studies, and knew better than to leave a hard-deadline task until just before the deadline.
Over-long working hours lead to mistakes and reduced productivity. It is much more efficient to mix work with plenty of sleep and a reasonable amount of exercise and relaxation. Mature students have had more time to get work-life balance under control than recent graduates.
**Not well paid.** The article seemed to assume financial dependence on the PhD program. That is true for most recent graduates. Mature students, especially after successful careers in a technical field, may have other financial resources. I supported myself and paid my tuition out of my investment income while living in a house I owned.
**Background knowledge.** This is the area where a mature student may have the biggest advantage. There is an immense difference between passing an undergraduate course in a topic and spending several years of one's working life living and breathing it.
Staying employable in the computer industry for decades requires continuous study. I had already read some of the assigned papers for seminar courses, and earlier editions of a couple of course textbooks. Studying was easier in college because I could get advice on what to read, saving me the effort of working out what I was going to need to know next year.
**After the PhD.** In my case I took a year off to celebrate after the PhD, and enjoyed it so much I retired. I can still use my skills answering questions on StackOverflow, helping a college robotics team, and participating in open source software development. That is an option I would not have had thirty years earlier.
If I had looked for paid work, I would not have considered jobs as a postdoc or similar. That would ignore almost all of my resume. I was more likely to return to industry, because I prefer a pure technical path that the academic world does not seem to offer.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: I received my PhD at the age of 65. I have a job working in my humanities profession as an adjunct and getting the expected pay for it. I have been hired for the maximum amount of hours permitted. My department chair seems to like me. My position is not a lucrative one but a retirement job. It is a job where I can research and write at my leisure without worrying about having to publish.So, jobs are out there and if being in your 30s, 40s, 50s plus is stopping you, think about what you really want from academia -- careers in teaching colleges are increasingly going on-line. The old-time professor has retreated to the nursing home. Academia is now more about corporate structure and business modeling. All academics should have updated computer skills and ready to learn anything new placed upon the desk. Publish on line. Team up with younger co-workers. Be passionate about the job at hand. In some ways, I am lucky. I do not need a tenured position. In surveying the field, I'm not sure I would want one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: If we agree that PhD holder at any level in academic position primary duty is to stimulating young scholars to correct path then expertise is vital. Consider a professor with years of experience in industry can profoundly support youth to learn meaningful objects than naïve one. the most shortage in developing countries academic education clearly is that scholars really don't know what is expecting them after graduation. skillful professor equipped with advanced theory and IT capability has profound affect positively rather very young tyro who still needs help. the best age in my opinion for PhD is in range of 35-45.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I am 73 and in my second year of a PhD program. It will be my second doctorate - the first in law and this one in sociology. I also have an MBA which I earned after I became 70 years of age.
I really never think about my age; I just do it because it's what I want to do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: It always amazes me that there are so many questions about what the maximum age for a PhD is and none about what the minimum "age" (experience) should be.
In my opinion, no one should be awarded a Ph.D. without a minimum of 20 years of professional experience. With the sole exception of doctorates "honoris causa" that could be awarded at any age, to recognize the merits of the true geniuses that so rarely appear.
Therefore, every educational institution should not only allow, but prioritize, the return of professionals who can contribute knowledge and experience in their work areas and want to share his/her knowledge in the form of a thesis.
At least in my country every year there are thousands of new doctors under 30, whose PhD thesis do not deserve the wood of the tree in which they have been printed.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_11: No age is too old, but your prospects for what happens after - what you might be able to *do* with your degree - do change.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/26 | 599 | 2,591 | <issue_start>username_0: In primary publications, such as journals or conference proceedings, it is a common practise not to use the title or designation of authors in the front-matter.
What are the most compelling reasons for not including those information? Or in other words, are there any disadvantages?<issue_comment>username_1: I suspect to some extent it has to do with the wide range of available titles and honorifics out there. Moreover, this can lead to rather strange credits, such as the German system, where a title such as "Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr.rer.nat. Dr.(h.c.) Dr.(h.c.) Dr.(h.c.)" is not as uncommon as it should be.
Keeping to names makes things more egalitarian. If needed, you can always look up a person's credentials. (It also helps to keep things consistent, and easier to track authors and cite papers, if you don't have to deal with titles as well!)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My experience is that professional fields (e.g., engineering and medicine) title are used more frequently in everyday life and are included in publications (e.g., New England Journal of Medicine and IEEE) while in non-professional fields (e.g., math and biology) titles are used less frequently and not included in publications (e.g., Ann Math and Cell).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't see this as a specific issue about titles, but rather a broader issue about how much information to provide about authors. In principle, there's an enormous amount one could say: for example, one could append complete CVs to the end of each published paper. Clearly, it's important to draw the line somewhere. The journals I'm familiar with typically do this by focusing on two issues: identifying authors unambiguously (people sometimes share the same name, but almost never the same name and department), and providing contact information. Titles and credentials bring up the question of status, and that's tricky because there are many different signs of status. Journals occasionally designate status awarded by the publisher (e.g., IEEE fellows or members of the US National Academy of Sciences), but it can be tricky to go much broader than that, since you need a good explanation of why you are publicly recognizing one person's particular type of status and not another's.
One option I've occasionally seen is to include a brief bio (typically one paragraph) of each author at the end of the paper. This is a convenient way to learn more about the authors, and it lets them each highlight whatever information they think is appropriate.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/26 | 393 | 1,656 | <issue_start>username_0: Is adjunct faculty's duty limited to teaching? Do they have any role in course design, grading, etc.?
What are the other responsibilities, as an adjunct faculty?<issue_comment>username_1: There's a wide range of people called adjunct faculty. For example, it may include working professionals in the field who serve as part-time faculty (this is common in law and architecture, and I've seen it with industrial researchers in computer science). Depending on the circumstances, this sort of adjunct may be treated much like the other faculty in the department, except for being part time. However, I assume you are talking about the most common use of the term "adjunct", at least in the US, namely low-paid, low-status faculty typically teaching part time on temporary contracts. (They may be working full time overall, but only part time at any given institution, so the universities can avoid paying benefits.)
For this sort of adjunct, it really depends on the details of the contract, and it may vary between universities, as well as depending on issues such as whether any of the courses are online. A typical arrangement will include some amount of course design (at least at the level of creating a syllabus), lecturing, grading, and office hours. Typically there is no committee work or other service and no research duties.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Being an adjunct faculty may provide the following benefits (and responsibilities):
* Be a PI grants that require faculty status
* Advise / mentor students and postdocs
* Vote in departmental meetings
* Participate in committees
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/09/26 | 867 | 3,307 | <issue_start>username_0: Is there an easy way or existing tool to generate a historical chart with the occurrence of one or more user-specified keyword(s) (combinations) in academic publications, based on the words in the title and/or abstract of a paper?
There is a almost-what-I-was-looking-for tool called [Google Scholar Trend Miner](http://ats.cs.ut.ee/u/kt/stuff/scholartrend/), but it seems to be not working anymore, as it reports after hitting Go: "*It seems that Google found out that we are a bot and started offering its CAPTCHA. Please, wait some hours and try again*"<issue_comment>username_1: If you have access to it, you can username_6 easily do that with Thomson Reuters’ [Web of Science](http://www.webofknowledge.com/) portal. Run any query you want, probably starting with the simplest one: `Topic=XXXX`. Then, select “Analyze results” at the top-right bottom-left of the results list, and sort them by year of publication:
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You can have a look at the arXiv cultoromics website at <http://arxiv.culturomics.org>, which however searches in articles on the arXiv. Depending on your field of interest, this may or may not be good enough.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Web of Science is a great resource for a historical review or a trend analysis of a keyword or subject. Another resource is Scopus. To use Scopus to search for a review of a phrase, word, or keyword from a controlled vocabulary keyword such as MeSH or EMTREE, enter the phrase, word or keyword in the search box and select the appropriate search filter to the right of the search box. You can search by title, abstract, keyword, or any combination of the three. Results can be filtered by a number of options and also can be exported for further analysis. The caveat to databases such as Web of Science or Scopus is to check the date range of the materials indexed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Edit: I though I would update this answer with a tool I recently discovered--[trends.google.com](http://trends.google.com)
It's not specific to peer-reviewed publications, but allows one to search keywords by country, category (e.g., science), and web/image/news/.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/25llk.png)
[Google's Ngram viewer](https://books.google.com/ngrams) is also useful. It's quick and easy for seeing trends as far back as the 1800's.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I've written a small Python tool for this purpose. It scrapes Google scholar for each year in a given time span, extracts the occurrences and saves them to a CSV file. The tool is located at: <https://github.com/username_587/academic-keyword-occurrence>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Scholar Plotr doesn't work anymore due to rate limiting by Google. An alternative easy to use and free tool for anyone without academic licences is Dimensions AI:
[app.dimensions.ai](https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication)
It works with it's own publications database and shows a lot of statistics e.g. publications per year, citations per year.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/26 | 474 | 2,070 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently I found a paper that has a number of typographical errors, esp in equations. Should one notify the authors or the publishers on such issues? How do the approach change if the article is somewhat aged?
When should/can one write a 'Comments on ...' article? How different is an Errata and a 'Comments on ...' article?<issue_comment>username_1: Here's what I would suggest:
* First, alert the authors to the issues. Wait to see how they respond, or do not respond. But in all cases, they should be the first you write to.
* If the issues do not severely impact the correctness of the work or its utility, stop there. It's probably not worth making a fuss about something most readers will either not use, or can easily correct themselves.
* If you publish something on the topic yourself, especially if you build on the authors' equations or otherwise use them, you should make a note of the issue in your article.
* Finally, if you believe the issue is important and/or the equations are widely used, you should contact the journal's editor and ask for guidance.
Errata are “authored” by the original authors. Publisher's corrections also exist, when the responsibility for the issue (typo in equation, misprint in figures, etc.) is that of the publisher.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To answer your last question, an errata is always (almost always?) written by the authors of the article, whereas a "Comments on..." article can be written by anyone. However, to write a "Comments on..." article, which in my experience are rare, you must have a substantial new idea. It's not enough to say "I found typos in the original paper".
If the **original paper contains a proof that is incorrect**, and **you have a proof that is correct**, that could be enough for a paper. In this case you probably also need to provide counterexamples to the original proof. Similarly, if you can explain why the original data analysis was seriously flawed, and you have correct data analysis, that might be a paper.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/09/26 | 561 | 2,386 | <issue_start>username_0: While looking at [this *Science* paper](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/176.abstract), I noticed that a few of the authors have a lot of affiliations: the first author has five affiliations, including four different departments or programs at Harvard University, and the last author has seven, all of them at Harvard University:
I consider it immoderate, as I cannot imagine that each author has such strong links to so many workplaces (imagine what their typical week looks like, changing desk every two hours!). However, it was published in a highly-respected (and highly-watched) journal, meaning it probably is an accepted practice.
So, what is the criterion for affiliations? How can one end up with 7 different departments at the same university?<issue_comment>username_1: A department is paying something? If YES then the name is on the paper, it's that simple. I think that, one day, I will have to put the name of the coffee shop close to my home since it participated a lot in enhancing the quality of my research.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The general criterion is that you must list your primary affiliation or any institution that is providing essential funding/resources, and you may list any institution that has given you a relevant appointment (which could be called many things if it's not a real job: affiliate faculty, courtesy appointment, visiting position, consulting faculty, etc.).
In practice, the way it works is that some people collect enormous numbers of affiliations through great popularity: every department wants these people to come and interact, so they all offer appointments. (When this happens, it's hard for the popular people to turn down the invitations, out of fear of causing offense, so they end up with a lot of affiliations.) Other people deliberately try to accumulate as many appointments as possible, to show off how popular or interdisciplinary they are, and they achieve this by going around asking for appointments. (And they often get them, since even if you aren't excited about someone, it's easier to give them a meaningless affiliation than to turn down their request.)
The net result is that there's no way of knowing what it means in any given case, without more information.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/09/27 | 1,442 | 6,242 | <issue_start>username_0: After posting a preprint on arXiv, or after an accepted paper appears online, how to bring other's attention to it?
(Unless one is already a big name in one's field, or one proves a long-standing and well-known open problem, I doubt that just waiting for things to happen is going to suffice.)
For sure one can give talks or present posters on relevant conferences. But are there any other methods of bringing it to the attention of others who might be interested and for whom it may be beneficial?
The question is both about "classical" methods and any relevant Internet tools.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, I would say **no**. Poster sessions and talks are the main way of sharing your research. You can try contacting the authors of any widely-known blogs in your field, and you can try sharing your research with any collaborators from other projects (i.e., ones who don't already know about it), but anything beyond that and you're venturing in the realm of being annoying.
There's one major exception that I can think of, and that's in the case where you're publishing a research analysis technique. In that situation, you can publish a toolkit that uses your method, and that may help speed up adoption of the technique. For example, in neuroscience, the [SPM](http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/) fMRI data analysis toolbox is very widely used. The group behind the toolbox came out a few years ago with a new set of techniques—DCM—for mapping brain activity, and incorporated those techniques into the toolbox. Because of this, many researchers now use this analysis tool. (Of course, this also means that you'll have many researchers using the tool incorrectly, and you may have to publish [instructions on when and when not to apply the technique](http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~rmoran/Journals/TenRules_NeuroImage_49_3099_2010.pdf).)
---
username_2 pointed out another exception; if you're building on the results of another research group, it is definitely acceptable to contact the researchers in that group to let them know if your work. They're the most likely people to be interested in your work, and (arguably) they are in a position to give you the most useful feedback.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Eykanal is basically right, but there's a fine line between networking and being annoying. There are plenty of circumstances where sending email to more famous/senior colleagues is perfectly fine.
If you already have a professional relationship with someone, it's perfectly fine to write a quick email saying something like "Thanks for the great lunch conversation we had at [conference] last month. You might be interested in this paper I just wrote." Yes, a recent lunch conversation counts as a professional relationship.
If you *don't* already have a professional relationship, then you should probably limit emails to a few key people who have a *direct* connection to your paper -- either you build on one of their results (which your paper cites), or improve one of their results (which your paper cites), or they've written papers on closely related topics (which your paper cites) . But within those constraints, emailing your paper is perfectly fine; everyone likes to hear that *their* work is useful and interesting.
If you do send your paper out, be sure to welcome comments, but don't *expect* a response from anyone. That silence from Famous Person On The Internet doesn't *necessarily* mean that they aren't reading your paper; they're probably just really busy.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Don't forget about old-fashioned face-to-face conversation. If you go to a conference, it is likely you will meet new people or re-connect with friends or acquaintances from other institutions. A common first question in such conversations is "What do you do?" or "What are you working on now?" This is a natural lead-in to tell this person about your latest work. Try to keep it short and tailor it to the known interests of the person you are talking to. If they are intrigued, they can ask more questions and keep the conversation going. The same principle applies if you meet someone on a research or seminar visit somewhere (whether you are visiting them or they are visiting you). Face-to-face conversation is less efficient than a talk or poster, since you are only getting to people one or two at a time, but it is also usually more compelling.
It's worthwhile doing this even if you are also giving a talk or poster at the conference, since it can serve as advertising to convince them to come to your talk or visit your poster. Alternatively, you can give a talk on one topic and advertise a different topic (say your previous paper) in conversations. Again, it's worthwhile to tailor your choice of which result to advertise in conversation to the interests of the person you are talking to.
Other suggestions:
* Encourage your co-authors to give talks on the paper as well. This can be a mixed blessing, because people tend to associate a result with either the person they hear it from or the most famous person on the paper, but it definitely helps to spread knowledge about the paper.
* If you have your own travel money, you can write to someone and suggest you visit them and give a seminar. You can also write to someone asking for a visit if you don't have money, but that is rather pushy, and is best reserved for cases where you have a strong existing relationship with the person, such as a past supervisor or recurring collaborator.
* Again, if you have money, you can invite someone to give a seminar at your home institution. This is an opportunity to learn about their latest work and also to chat with them and tell them about yours, as above. Even if you don't have money, there may well be a local seminar series that has some, and perhaps you can make a speaker suggestion.
* This one is less under your control, but one of the main ways people hear about new results is indirectly, when someone else mentions them or cites them. What this means is that if you can get the information about your paper to just one person who can directly use it to advance their own work, you have doubled your advertising power.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/27 | 853 | 3,595 | <issue_start>username_0: There seem to exist many bibliographic reference styles and many universities have their own guidelines too. I wonder, whether there exist any universal guidelines for formatting bibliographic references in publications?<issue_comment>username_1: There is no truly "universal" system—that's why packages like [EndNote](http://www.endnote.com) and [BibTex](http://www.bibtex.org) both come with hundreds or even thousands of different bibliography styles.
That said, there are some common approaches—the [Modern Language Association](http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/index.shtml) and [Harvard](http://www.sac.sa.edu.au/Library/Library/Bibliography/bibliography.htm) formats are quite common in the humanities. The sciences have more widely spread systems, but I think the most common I've seen is the "abbreviated style," containing authors, journal, volume and page info and year. (There are some variations within that style based on different publishers, and some publishers, like ACS, are now starting to take advantage of electronic distribution by including full titles.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 said, there are no truly universal rules and the bibliographic reference styles differ across scientific disciplines, and even within these there is often large variation. So normally, you need to consider the journal/conference/... the publication you are writing is aimed at and consult their rules. Most of the time, you will find quite strict requirements articulated in the venue's "submission guidelines", or "author's corner" sections - usually on their website. If still not sure, contact the responsible editors/PC chairs to advise you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: **The answer is no.** Within fields, there are often a single style which makes some approaches and components more common or even that makes a single style dominant.
Get yourself some software like [BibTex](http://www.bibtex.org/), [EndNote](http://www.endnote.com/), [Zotero](http://zotero.org) (my personal favorite), or similar so that you can simply rely on someone else to automate importing the data into a database and outputting according to whatever rules a particular journal or venue requires.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As everyone says, there are no universal systems, although there are a few very popular systems. Of course you should use reference software, but if you are asking which style you should use for general purpose citations outside of publishing, I would just pick one of the most popular, depending on your discipline.
* [Chicago style](http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html) seems flexible and perhaps the least field specific.
* [APA style](http://www.apastyle.org/) is popular in the life sciences and psychology, of course. But, I don't know if it is so popular in the humanities.
* [MLA style](http://www.mla.org/style) seems to be the most popular in the humanities.
If you are not instructed to use a specific one, all of them give the necessary information in a bibliography/reference list format (that is, the full title, authors, dates). I think the issue that might be field specific is in-text citations, but that is not your question. If you pick one and use it consistently in any given document, I am certain it will be internationally understood.
Keep in mind you do not need to learn all the details- just select the option in the software and make sure any imported references (from old PDF's, etc.) are correct. I like [Mendeley](http://www.mendeley.com/).
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/27 | 332 | 1,420 | <issue_start>username_0: Though fewer and fewer scientists actually read dead-tree editions of journals, being featured on a journal cover is still a nice way to highlight your paper to a large community, and is usually considered a great recognition of one’s work. So, how does one go about getting on a journal cover? If you feel you have extraordinarily attractive graphics, do you submit them for consideration to the editor? Or is it useless, and should only be done when explicitly asked (or suggested) by the editor?<issue_comment>username_1: Usually the journals (at least with my very recent publication with Nature Publishing Group) ask for a potential journal cover upon notification of your manuscript's acceptance.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I emailed the editor and suggested I had a beautiful and relevant graphic for a special issue. That worked.
**Edit:** Image attached. Also, note that I did go about it incorrectly, but it worked anyway. I emailed the editors when I submitted my paper. I should have waited until it was accepted.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Pay the color charges. A lot of journal covers come directly from figures in an article. If you go out of your way to avoid paying color charges, you will never have a cover worthy figure. You will, however, have a lot more grant money.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/28 | 1,004 | 4,555 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose I've done some research as part of a (small) group, and this research has been published as a paper with all group members listed as co-authors. Then I go to give a presentation on this research at a conference, but I prepare the presentation and the writeup for the conference proceedings mostly on my own. Is it normal to list all the co-authors of the original paper as authors of the conference proceedings? If not, is there a particular way I should credit them in the proceedings, e.g. a footnote, or in the acknowledgments section?
I know the obvious answer is probably going to be that I should ask my co-authors how to credit them, and I will do that, but what I would really like to know is the most common practice, if there is one. (My field is particle physics)<issue_comment>username_1: Most common practise, I think, is to add them as co-authors in the write-up for proceedings, while in the presentation, mention them in the acknowledgements slide at the end of presentation. The title slide may include your name alone and mentioning your group's name is a better practise. Some also highlight PI's name in the title slide of the presentation.
The proceedings write-up, probably will get expanded later and takes the form of a journal article. So giving credits to all those worked in the problem should be properly attributed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The practice I'm most familiar with is that a coauthor is a coauthor is a coauthor. Anyone listed as a coauthor on the title page of the paper should be listed on the title slide of any talk about the paper, and explicitly acknowledged ("This is joint work with...") when the talk *begins*. Whether any of your coauthors helped you prepare your slides or the proceedings abstract is none of the audience's business.
But this attitude is clearly specific to my field, where papers only rarely have more than three authors. It might not scale so well in fields (like particle physics?) where a "small" group may have 100 members.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think the key distinction is whether the conference presentation and writeup are viewed as a presentation of new results or as an exposition of work published elsewhere.
When you are publishing a research paper, the criterion for coauthorship is making an important intellectual contribution to the research. Everyone in this category must be listed, regardless of their role in the actual writing, unless they specifically decline coauthorship.
On the other hand, there is no need to include these coauthors on further expositions: if you go on to write a survey or review article on this topic, then the authorship should reflect who actually worked on the article, rather than who did the original research. (The same way if you wrote an exposition of some of Einstein's work, that wouldn't make him a posthumous coauthor.) Of course, the exposition needs to give clear credit for the original research.
The border between these cases can get a little blurry. If something could be viewed as a research announcement (where experts would be learning of the work for the first time), then I'd say that puts it in the research category, rather than exposition, even if the primary publication appears elsewhere. The basic issue is whether you could cause confusion. If your writeup may be cited as a research contribution, then you should list your coauthors.
If you are in a field like CS, where conferences are a primary venue for announcing research results, then you definitely need to list your collaborators as coauthors on the presentation and writeup. In math, things are a little different: some conferences publish refereed research papers in their proceedings, but there are also other possibilities. Some places, like Oberwolfach, ask speakers to write up an account of their talk, but this is not considered a research publication at all. In a case like that, there's probably no need to have formal coauthors, as long as the text itself is perfectly clear about referring to the research publication and author list. (When collaborators of mine have written things like this, I've been happy not to be listed as a coauthor on the resulting document, since that way I don't have to worry about the writing.)
However, the most important rule is not to offend your collaborators. Leaving out someone who feels they should be included is worse than including someone you don't think is necessary, so it's always best to ask.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/28 | 1,469 | 5,934 | <issue_start>username_0: What is the etiquette for addressing senior research staff and faculty members in an academic setting in the USA? A postdoc is no longer a student but at the same time he or she is (in general) not at the level of senior research engineers/scientists and professors. How should he or she address them ("FirstName" or "Dr. LastName") so that proper respect as well as confidence in one's "above-the-students" position is maintained?
Does it depend on the University, Lab group or the level of experience one has acquired before joining the present postdoc position?<issue_comment>username_1: Address senior research staff and faculty members in the same way that they do with you. You're "<NAME>" and full profs are calling you "Bob"? Then you can do the same.
And if you are the senior, you are supposed to tell explicitly what is the tradition, in order to avoid embarrassment for juniors.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: When I was a grad student, I got into the habit of always referring to everyone as "Professor" or "Doctor". The theory was that no one would be insulted by your referring to them as "Professor", whereas some folks would be insulted if you called them by their first name. This worked very well; the few people who wanted to be on a first-name basis always told me so at our first meeting ("Oh, please, call me Bob").
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: When I was a grad student, my initial preference was to call faculty "Doctor" or "Professor". At some point (about halfway through, I think) one professor said to me: **"If you want them to see you as a peer, you should call the professors the same way that they call each other."** At my university, all the professors called each other by their first names (it didn't matter if they were assistant, associate, or full). Since I planned to make a career in academia, I *really did want to be viewed as a peer*. So I started calling them by their first name (and no one ever told me to do otherwise).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: As a grad student I was lucky and faculty in my program tended to be clear about what they wanted to be called. Since everyone but the medics wanted to be called by first name, I came to the conclusion that faculty should expect to be called by the first name unless they say otherwise.
There was one awkward Professor in my grad program who never made it clear what he wanted to be called. Soon after deciding to call him by his first name (Lou) I heard my advisor, who has known Lou for 40 years, called him Louis. At that point I decided if my advisor calls him Louis I better stick with Professor. About two weeks later another colleague was talking to me about how he and Louie used to play football together. At my next interaction with Lou I related the stories and asked him what he wanted to be called. He thought Lou would be fine.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: What is likely true is that first/given-name form of address expresses a peer-relationship attitude. In some contexts, there is a nearly-mandatory pose that "we are all peers", etc. While, ideally, this is true at a moral or civil level, it is equally obviously false in terms of sheer experience, and, usually commensurately, expertise.
(There is an auxiliary-but-related question simply about *age*... Given the extreme disparity between my own kids and myself, I don't expect them to address me by my first name... nor as "<NAME>" ... but hopefully by some affectionate honorific that does acknowledge (the complexity of) our relationship. Similarly, I pointedly adopt a stylized form of address for my kids. We are all acquainted with the trope that when the mom addresses the kid by the kid's full name, they're in trouble. I myself, especially at the point that I'm older than many postdocs' parents, have a similar feeling about *that* relationship. Opinions differ, of course.)
Use of an honorific, even if informal-honorific, form of address does express respect. Use of given name expresses familiarity, etc. At worst, given-name address implies a sort of "good ol' buddy" relationship that verges on the demeaning.
Perhaps the genuine issue isn't the words uttered, per se, but the tone-of-voice and body language. But, if we agree with *this*, then the original question becomes enlarged to the question of whether one should express deference or respect for ... ok, the real question is about how one fills in the blank about the object of this sentence! If it's "one's boss", well, one does what is necessary. If it's "one's mentor/teacher", then perhaps a systematic tone of respect is appropriate. If it's simply "the old person", then who knows? What *is* your attitude toward your mentor/advisor/teacher?
Operationally, as in some of the other answers, unless there's a pervasive conformity pressure to do "given name address", surely it's better to err on the side of slightly-excessive expression-of-respect, rather than the other way. Wait till some says "Please, just call me ...", rather than the awkward opposite.
(In French and some other languages perhaps-inappropriate first-name address *used* to have its own name: "tutoyer", meaning to address toooo many people with the familiar "tu", rather than formal-er "vous", but I gather that times have changed...)
In terms of quips, I might suggest that, ... in contrast to the suggestion that if your thesis advisor or postdoc mentor *doesn't* want you to call them by their first name,then get another, ... if you don't have a mentor you respect enough ... for good reason, that their expertise and insights are nearly-unimaginably superior to yours at this point in your career... to throw a little honorific their way, *then* you should get a new advisor/mentor.
People won't be offended by your being too polite and respectful, but may be by the opposite. Pretty straightforward, I think.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/28 | 1,377 | 5,875 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a question about two possible career paths, for which I was unable to come up a better title. Let me explain what I mean:
Path 1, Working in an area: By this I mean, *making a career* by adding to the knowledge of a field of study. This may include sorting out open questions in that field or identifying new issues or pushing the boundaries of existing knowledge. This typically involves having a larger perspective and understanding of the field and its relevance to the world.
Path 2, Working on problems: By this I mean *making a career* by solving a series of specific challenging problems not necessarily belonging to a common field of study. Here one only attempts to understand enough about the problem at hand to solve the problem, but does not show an interest in developing the area as such.
Working in an area requires one to have a broader vision, scholarship and commitment to the development of the area. Working on problems does not involve commitment, but requires one to repeated invest oneself in learning about a new area. By working in an area one can encounter a degree of monotony. By working on problems, one can potentially find new challenges at every juncture.
So my question is: career wise, what is a better option? Specifically, which of these kind of academics are more valued by the community? What, if any, are pitfalls of these paths?
Meta question: is path 2 a path at all or do all academics eventually settle into path 1 after spending some time on path 2?
**Edit:** I guess the key difference between the two paths is that path 1 leads one to become an "expert" with extensive knowledge in a particular area. Path 2 exposes one to a variety of problem situations and makes one a better problem solver, though it may not make one an expert in any field. For the purpose of this question, you may take the area to be a well studied field such as, say integer programming, which has some long-standing open problems, but is not necessarily so young that it allows for a variety of research opportunities.<issue_comment>username_1: Without knowing anything about the specific area, I'd say that you've set up a false dichotomy. I don't know if anyone ever consciously does one or the other exclusively. Sometimes you work bottom up (i.e path 2 -> path 1), and sometimes you work top down (path 1 -> path 2). Both these "paths" should be dimensions of your research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I am reading the paths 1 and 2 as follows
Path 1 : The culmination of working on one problem (either success or failure) leads to another which leads to yet another and it goes on and on.
Path 2 : Number of problems on a field that are not related to each other and are stand alone; do not depend on or influence the other.
As @username_1 has already pointed out the answer might heavily depend on the field. But trying to answer in general, it is better to follow the Path 1, as it is mentioned in the question itself, it is focussed on a long term goal and elevated vision. Academia always long for broader vision and greater commitments. An employer would love to hire some one who has a concrete long term goal and enthusiasm.
While Path 2 is not a way that `does not involve commitment`, it is more focussed on short term goals and narrowed vision, such as getting a degree, finishing a project etc. This also involve commitment, but not on a large scale.
Thus brings up the question, "Why we want to learn or explore?" Irrespective of the field, this seems to be the essence of the question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Areas are not well-defined, they change over time and even if a dean know when the boarder between some fields, Nature does not (as they are mostly communities emerging from common scientific interests).
Moreover, confining oneself to a given area may end up into working in a exhausted subfield that people no longer care about (and missing new opportunities).
However, when it comes to your visibility and prestige, other researchers will care only about your skills and achievements in a given field. But again, there is also a question of how much the disciplines overlap, both in terms of communities and methodology.
So here there is a trade-off between being recognized (and prepared) well in one field vs less but in more.
When it comes "is it better to focus on solving particular problems or learning general stuff", the question is a bit different from your career-related one. Opinions may vary (and it may be a matter of one's personal philosophy), but for research\_ output (not e.g. *teaching* skills) the first one is the only the one that counts. And if someone is skilled and committed, the later comes anyway (and the converse is not true).
(Anyway, it's the reason why during PhD it is (arguably) advisable to focus on solving problems (and learning stuff needed to solve them), not on spending hours on general courses.)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: A classic interview question (paraphrased) comes to mind:
1. What do you think is the most important problem in your area?
2. What have you done to solve this problem?
Perhaps, these questions might be worth thinking about when choosing a career path.
Although this might look more like a comment than an answer, what I mean is you need to think about your question from several perspectives: what do you think is essential for your field and how you can contribute there, and what are your personal talents or virtues, such as working on technical problems in depth, or administrative skills in managing resources for problem solving in a broad sense, or something else. These are your assets. List them and do analysis on how would they be better applied, what combination of them would yield bigger impact or bigger rewards, depending on what you favor.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/09/29 | 219 | 939 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it unprofessional to write (in a paper) that something is "really cool", for example, when describing a colliding black hole simulation?<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds unprofessional and unscientific. Imagine also your readers in 30 years, what will they think? They may not even take the paper seriously. Indeed, current potential readers may not take the paper seriously.
What would you think if you read an old paper that describes a black hole simulation as "groovy"?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to Dave's answer, I'd say that in general, subjectivity is not very professional when writing academic papers. The point is to convince the reader by presenting only objective argument. Somehow, if I read a paper with something like "it's cool, it's amazing, that's the best, etc", then I might think that the author just ran out of objective arguments.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/09/29 | 256 | 1,037 | <issue_start>username_0: What is the point in a "list of figures" in the following cases?
1. Masters thesis
2. Ph.D. thesis
3. Academic (text)books<issue_comment>username_1: A list of figures allows one to find the figures contained in a book. This could be useful, for example, when you want to quickly find one of the figures you recall seeing in the book, but you can't remember which page it is on. You could also use the list of figures when buying the book to see whether it has lots of figures or only a few.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To add to username_1's answer, especially in large publications, like the ones you mention, having a list of figures can be very helpful. E.g., a researcher cites a particular finding from a doctoral dissertation, which has some 100 pages and 20 figures. In such a case, researchers usually mention the figure's number. To the reader of the researchers article a list of figures in the dissertation would make locating the referenced figure much easier.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/09/30 | 273 | 1,022 | <issue_start>username_0: In a master's thesis the author provided a seemingly incorrect citation. ( [Link to paper](http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-01182002-134625/unrestricted/ThesisB.pdf) citation 4)
The information is obviously correct but in the cited paper I couldn't find any reference to the information he cited. Is it ok to cite him?<issue_comment>username_1: If you want to refer to his work (i.e. his results, discussion or conclusions), you should cite it.
If you want a reference to the particular piece of information he cited (the sentences describing plasma etching before his call to ref. 4), then you should find a direct source: either a textbook or review on the topic. This would be much better than a research article (or thesis), especially one badly sourced.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In general I do not like citing non-peer reviewed sources. Further, it sounds like you ware using it as a secondary source, which I like citing even less.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/09/30 | 1,010 | 3,741 | <issue_start>username_0: **The problem**
When doing a literature review at the start of a process of addressing a specific problem, it's easy to miss related material, if I don't know that it **is** related.
**The example**
Let's say I'm looking at a particular electricity-generation problem relating to pollution costs (in a very broad sense), of combustion and cooling: there might be relevant papers about, say, biodiversity and temperature in river water, that I don't know about, and haven't made the connection to, and it appears in a journal well outside the field of electricity generation.
However, within the literature, there will be authors whose papers span those fields: work on valuing biodiversity (so that loss of biodiversity represents a quantifiable cost), and the effect on biodiversity of changing river temperatures (so that using river-cooling in electricity generation, has a deleterious effect on river biodiversity).
**The proposition**
It should be possible, by doing an analysis of keywords, of co-authorship, and of journals, to automate the building of a network of subjects and of authors, to map out interconnections between specific narrow subject areas, and find the people that work in those interconnecting areas.
**The question**
Is there such a network map of subjects and authors, anywhere? Not just for this specific example, but one that spans a very wide range of literature (e.g. Engineering, Science, Technology, Economics). Ideally, one that gets updated frequently, based on ongoing publications?
As I hope the example above illustrates, it has to be:
* easy to interrogate it;
* very detailed on subject linkages; and
* provide links between people as well as subjects.<issue_comment>username_1: Generally, a researcher is current in the field, (s)he knows the top conferences and key research groups as well as what they have achieved. Often there is no space to list every paper on a certain subject anyway, so one must choose the key papers related to the topic at hand.
However, there are quite a few services that index papers by keywords or topics and authors. [Scopus](http://www.scopus.com), [Web of Science](http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/web_of_science/), [IEEE Xplore](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org), [ACM digital library](http://dl.acm.org) to name a few.
Search engines do a good job indexing the papers, [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com) and [DBLP](http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/) come to mind.
And finally, the social networks such as [Mendeley](http://www.mendeley.com/), [Linked In](http://www.linkedin.com) and [Research Gate](http://www.researchgate.net) encourage the authors to list their research publications and provide search functionality.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Here is a subject map of science:
It is taken from the following paper, freely available from Plos One:
<http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0039464?imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0039464.g001>
I think that this is the sort of thing that you are interested in.
N.B. I am not a co-author, nor have I read the paper, so I make no judgment on its quality.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There is an interactive map on [Eigenfactor](http://www.eigenfactor.org/) (a much better (arguably) way for assessing impact that mere citation counting):
[eigenfactor.org - mapping science](http://www.eigenfactor.org/map/index.php) (currently, only for medicine related)
You can explore disciplines by graph of citations (i.e. which discipline cites which; it need not to be symmetric).
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/09/30 | 1,139 | 4,495 | <issue_start>username_0: Inspired by the recent question on [list of figures](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3481/whats-the-point-in-a-list-of-figures): what is the point of ending your introduction with a paragraph saying "The paper is structured as follows: in Section 1 we do BLAH, then in Section 2 we do BLAH, we move on with BLAH in Section 3, and conclude with Section 4 in which we do BLAH"?
Many papers in my area do it, my coauthors add them to our papers, and I kinda took the habit, too, but I never really understood why. It looks like a poor man's table of contents. After all, we already write what we plan to do in the introduction, and remind the reader in the conclusions.<issue_comment>username_1: The answer is really the obvious one: it is to alert the reader to the structure of the paper. In addition to this part in the introduction, the paper should also, every now and again, tell the reader where they are in the overall story of the paper. This makes it easier for the reader to read the paper, by giving them the global picture and pointing out from time to time where they are in the global picture.
A table of contents would be overkill (and it would take up too much space).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I find these paragraphs very useful (and often include them myself), precisely because it's a short version of a table of contents: often readers don't want to read the whole paper, but want to find one particular part of it. A summary of what's in each section makes this much easier.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Unlike Dave and username_2, I am going to argue *against* the style `The paper is structured as follows...`, though not against inclusion of content serving the same purpose.
Quite some time ago, I took to heart advice by [<NAME>](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/academic-program/give-great-research-talk/) on this, which can be found [here](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/How-to-give-a-great-research-talk.pdf) (slide 19), also echoed by [<NAME>](http://www.win.tue.nl/%7Esetalle/) in his [advice on writing introductions](http://www.win.tue.nl/%7Esetalle/introduction.html). In essence it boils down to this:
>
> Don't write *The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the problem. Section 3 ... Finally, Section 8 concludes*. That is most of the time only a waste of paper.
>
>
> **Instead, use forward references from the narrative in the introduction.** The introduction (including the contributions) should survey the whole paper, and therefore forward reference every important part.
>
>
>
In a consequence, the position I take on this part of writing introduction is that while it is important to inform the reader about the structure of the paper so that he/she can take the path of few surprises and easily follow the discourse, it should be however done with style. Doing it in such a poor manner as "The paper is structured as follows ..." is simply **bad literature**. I would argue, that it is better to firstly, clearly state the contribution of the paper and then write up the paper's plot summary leading from the introduction to the culmination of the paper in supporting the claimed contributions and discussion. I mention the references to the individual sections, and sometimes even deeper structural parts, only in passing, or include them in parentheses.
On a similar note, regarding `Conclusion` section, I took to heart the advice of [<NAME>](http://cr.yp.to/djb.html) on [writing conclusions](http://cr.yp.to/writing/devil-conclusions.html). Citing other authors, he suggest to simply drop the conclusions part from papers and put all the important conclusions into the introductory section. Well, unless there really is something *important* to say there. Since then, I conclude my papers either directly by a loose paragraph at the end of the `Discussion` section (renamed usually `Discussion and final remarks`), or if I feel like there is something important to say, by a standalone short section `Final remarks`. However, never re-iterating what was done in the paper. The reader is anyway free to "rewind/relist" in the paper (see the very last point by [DJB](http://cr.yp.to/writing/devil-conclusions.html)).
P.S.
The links to homepages of the two guys include many more good tutorials on aspects of writing/research in computer science.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer] |
2012/09/30 | 1,702 | 7,031 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a physics undergrad, and plan to pursue a PhD in mathematical physics (string theory?). I have heard from a lot of people, who have personally seen the research scenario at universities both in the US and Europe, that it is much easier to get a PhD from a European university, that it takes about 3-4 years in a good university in Europe, while more than 5 years in American universities. Another thing I have been told is that in Europe you get your PhD after 4 years atmost by default, even if you have not done any original research. Is it true?<issue_comment>username_1: The duration between US and Europe are not usually the same, mostly because in the US, you only need to have a Bachelor degree to enrol for a PhD (and you can get a Master during the PhD), while in Europe, it's usually required to have a Master degree before enrolling for a PhD. Since it can take two years to get a Master, you also need about 5 years after your Bachelor to get your PhD.
I don't know if you always get your PhD after a number of years, no matter what, but the point in Europe is that a PhD is not necessarily an advantage on the market, with respect to a Master (at least, that's true in France), and is mostly required for working in Academia. In Academia, nobody cares that you have a PhD (because, well, almost everybody got one), so your publications, references, contacts, your CV in general will make a difference, not your degree. Hence, it might be possible that you can get the degree after a while, knowing that it's useless anyway if you haven't done any original research (although in many places, it's now required to have a given number of publications before being able to submit a PhD thesis).
But I wouldn't claim in any way that it's a common practice, and I know several persons who have dropped (or been suggested to drop ...) their PhD program.
As for your main question, I don't know if one can tell whether it's easier to get a PhD in Europe than in the US, because it's hard to define what is "easier". If your question is whether you can come to Europe, enrol to any PhD, just wait 4 years and get your PhD, the answer is no.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Short answer: No.
Long answer: Determining the minimum bar for which a PhD can be awarded is a bad exercise. If you are merely working towards the minimum you will not successfully complete a PhD.
One thing to note is that PhDs in the US tend to be open ended (to the extent you can continue to get funding) while in Europe they tend to have fixed durations. This means in Europe the bar comes whether you are ready or not while in the US you get to chose when you defend. Neither is easier, just different.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There are tough (read respectable) and relatively easy (read weaker) schools and PhD programs in both sides. You could find a comparatively easy US university v.s. top school in Europe, and vice versa.
I suggest to set your goals a bit higher than you think you can reach rather than wasting time (read life) shooting for an "easy" PhD track.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: 1. Remember that Europe is a big place, comprised of lots of different countries. It doesn't make sense to talk about a European "PhD". The mechanism and typical PhD lengths between countries can be completely different.
The next few comments relate to the UK PhD system.
2. You don't get a PhD automatically after 4 years. I can introduce you to a few people who will testify to this!
3. In the UK, a PhD doesn't involve a "taught" aspect. I believe that in the US, the first two(?) years typically involve examinations.
4. In most Universities I'm familiar with, PhD students do not have a heavy teaching load. In my department, PhD students are allowed to take some tutorials/marking for additional money, **but** this is on top of there usual PhD working week. The number of hours a PhD student can work is closely monitored. In particular, it's incredibly rare for a PhD student to take undergraduate lectures.
I believe it is common in the US for PhD student to run a lecture course.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I have had the pleasure of both systems, US and European. The simple fact is that the average PhD takes less time in Europe than in the US. This does not directly correlate to quality (Although I have a somewhat informed opinion about that which I'll offer later), merely time to completion. Most of this has to due with the differences in Bachelor degrees from the 2 regions, commonly only 3 years in Europe, 4 in the US. Masters are also treated differently in both locations.
The real issue in my opinion is the lack of options for EU students. Both the US and Europe are experiencing a "watering-down" of the PhD, since they are all but required in so many places where they add no value other than haughty title. This is markedly worse in Europe, but the US is doing everything it can to "catch-up." In the US, the better job market allows multiple paths to success if you'd like to forego the PhD, while avoiding an advanced degree in Europe condemns one to worse underemployment than is already seen there (read that a Masters(Europe) is a Bachelors(US)).
Frankly, people want to believe their PhDs were exceptional and that by extension they endow their holders with exceptionality, but this is not true. A prerequisite PhD is a symptom of a sluggish, un-dynamic labor market, that sentences you to underpay for 3-5 years. If you really think you need one, the best advice is to find an advisor you can work with (a lot of them are amoral tyrants) finish it as quickly as possible, and move on. Contrary to statements above, what you get out is not linked exclusively to what you put in, and there are some very easy ones available.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Which country in the EU is that one supposed to be? In Portugal to enter a PhD program you either need to have a Masters or an exceptional Bachelors with high marks and letters of recommendation from senior researchers (only accepted in cases where applicants already have a publication record). A PhD usually takes around 5 years to complete. Exceptional people may do it in 4 years and quite a lot of students take 6 years or more to get one.
You do not get a PhD without a solid publication record. The requirements vary by institution and may include the number of publications and the impact factor of the publications.
If you are not motivated to spend a considerable amount of time studying that subject you should not bother getting the PhD. Also like others have said the career prospects and financial gains are not worth it either during the PhD or for the first 5 years after the PhD. Even then your position is not ensured. A leading academic researcher with that kind of income will be someone who is good at bringing research funding. Those kinds of people would manage just as well or better financially in the private sector.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/01 | 637 | 2,522 | <issue_start>username_0: If I publish a Master's thesis, does that count as a "publication" (ie protect me from other people publishing my work as their own?)
If I think I can get a paper out of my thesis, am I forfeiting this possibility by sending copies of my thesis around to other people to look at?<issue_comment>username_1: In order, yes, and no.
A thesis is a public document and thus helps establish "prior art" in terms of research. Of course sometimes researchers come up with the same ideas simultaneously, or certain work is just not known as widely as it should be, so sometimes work gets innocently repeated (as compared to plagiarised, which can also happen, but reasonably rarely).
As for publication, a thesis is an entirely different kind of publication to a paper, in every discipline I am familiar with, publishing papers drawn from work in a thesis is expected, sometimes even required. The only (?) way you could interfere with further publication would be if you published your thesis as a monograph.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The second question appears to be more involved than the existing answer indicates.
It is possible that your school may own the copyright (at least) to your work.
See [MIT Policies and Procedures | 13.1 Ownership of Intellectual Property](http://web.mit.edu/policies/13/13.1.html#sub3):
>
> Copyright ownership of theses generated by research that is performed
> in whole or in part by the student with financial support in the form
> of wages, salaries, stipend, or grant from funds administered by the
> Institute shall be determined in accordance with the terms of the
> support agreement, or in the absence of such terms, shall become the
> property of the Institute.
>
>
>
It is further possible that your funding source may have a larger stake in your intellectual property.
See [Do I Own My Dissertation? — Columbia Copyright Advisory Office](http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/04/14/copyright-qa-do-i-own-my-dissertation/):
>
> For instance, an employer supporting the student’s studies or an
> outside funding source may lay claim to whatever intellectual property
> is created.
>
>
>
Although the above source notes that this is not the usual case, a graduate student acquaintance of mine was not even allowed to continue work toward his thesis project after sale of his research by the university to an outside corporation. He had to choose a new project and begin again from scratch.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/10/01 | 1,686 | 6,715 | <issue_start>username_0: >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [EU Ph.D. in Germany: Calling yourself “Dr.” or “Ph.D.”](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1930/eu-ph-d-in-germany-calling-yourself-dr-or-ph-d)
>
>
>
I'm asking this question in relation to my doctoral studies in Germany. However, my question may be relevant to regulations in other European countries.
At the university where I pursue my doctorate, I have the choice between two titles. Upon successfully completion of my dissertation and all related examinations I can decide which title I want to hold: "Dr. rer. nat." or "Ph.D.".
In Germany, the traditional title is "Dr.". From what I understand the title "Ph.D." is being introduced at many universities for reasons of comparability with degrees from other countries (especially with the US and the UK). I'm guessing, the reasoning is that holding a "Ph.D." will improve your chances when applying for (academic) openings internationally. However, I have also been told that the German "Dr." has an excellent international reputation and may give you an edge over "Ph.D.".
EDIT: A couple of years ago, legal steps were taken so that a "Ph.D." issued by other European countries is automatically recognized in Germany (as long as the issuing institutions are eligible) and may be "translated" to "Dr." in Germany. There is also a question related to this [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1930/eu-ph-d-in-germany-calling-yourself-dr-or-ph-d). However, a "Ph.D." issued in Germany may *not* be "translated" to "Dr."! Therefore, I have to decide for either one and *cannot* use both.
Hence, my question is: **What are the advantages and disadvantages of either title with respect to academic careers in Germany and internationally?** Is a "Ph.D." seen as less distinguished by German academics? How is the German "Dr." perceived by academics in other countries as compared with a "Ph.D."?<issue_comment>username_1: As someone living in Germany right now, I can attest that there really is very little difference between PhD's from countries like the US, the UK, France, and Australia, and doctoral degrees from inside Germany. In many cases, German universities are looking for people with international experience when hiring, and thus the external experience with having a degree that *isn't* a "Dr.rer.nat." or a "Dr.-Ing." can be helpful.
However, as mentioned in the above link, it now *is* acceptable for people with PhD's to call themselves "Dr." inside of Germany. It may not be allowed for someone with a PhD degree from inside Germany to call themselves "Dr."; however, the inherent advantage is relatively small, I believe.
Moreover, if you are outside of Germany, the possession of a doctoral degree is probably more important than the actual title of the degree: in the US, I don't think you will be treated differently holding a "Dr.rer.nat." than the PhD.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll add a bit of a legal perspective into the game. Disclaimer: I hold a Dr. rer. nat. from Germany, though lived and worked in several other countries in the EU.
Firstly, personally I think, that "choosing a title" and seeing it as an important issue, is largely a German/Austrian/(Central European?) specialty. After all, why should your title matter outside academia, where the difference is anyway largely understood around the world?
Secondly, even when you hold some title from country X, you **are not** automatically eligible to use it across the border, even given there exists an equivalent one in the other country. Rather, there are legal procedures which lead to a formal recognition and proper translation of your title. So for me, being a "Dr." with a title from Germany, to be able to use either "Dr.", or "PhD" in other EU countries, especially those east of Germany, I would have to either undergo a formal procedure called [nostrification](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nostrification), or, in selected cases, if the university is granting an equivalent degree in my specialization, they could forgo the nostrification hassle and they could recognize it right away (rather and exception to the rule). Either way, you need to obtain a formal certificate from the state, or at least the university, stating exactly how your title translates to an equivalent title in the other country. Only then you can use the title freely. To top it up, the whole matter is regulated by bi-lateral international treaties between countries exactly stating which title holders are eligible to use which titles in the other country and how. See for example [the treaty on grades recognition between Czech Republic and Germany](http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/pdf/ZAB/Aequivalenzabkommen/Tschechien.pdf). There even is a [full website](http://anabin.kmk.org/) in Germany on all this (mostly for foreign title holders wanting to use them in Germany).
To sum it up, there is a whole lot to simply using an academic title in a country different from the one you obtained it in. This can be straightforward in countries where the culture doesn't care too much (in my experience e.g., Netherlands), but in countries where the title can be legally a part of your name (not sure whether it still is the case), such as almost whole Austrian-Hungarian empire heritage countries, this can be a big deal.
My point is the following: **It's probably irrelevant which title you choose. If you want to be precise, legally speaking, somebody probably already translated your title to another one (which you can't choose) which you should adopt in other countries.**
Apart from all that above, I regularly see people approaching me in e-mails, or letters by both "Dr. XYZ", as well, as "XYZ, PhD" - not speaking of those not checking the background and virtually promoting me to levels I do not belong to (yet). Again, the precise title doesn't matter that much after all.
---
Later edit, on a more anecdotal note:
>
> the precise title doesn't matter that much after all
>
>
>
Well, except when you want to use the title for things like skipping a queue when visiting a doctor and being treated very respectfully by all the nurses (Germany), or when encountering police, getting away with only with a warning and avoiding a fine for speeding, or other minor trespassing (countries eastwards of Germany). I have first-hand knowledge of such incidents, so my advice here would be to 1) go for the fanciest possible title, yet it should be widely recognized by general public, and 2) if your country of residence allows it, include the title on your ID card, passport, social security ID, whatever else, so that you can wave it when necessary :-D.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/10/01 | 1,276 | 5,292 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently received the reviews/comments for an article submitted few months back to a journal. All the reviewers overall appreciated the content and the usefulness, but also suggested corrections (varying from minor to major) : typos, better title and abstract, reorganizing the material, better exposition at certain places, adding more benchmarks; that need to be addressed before publications. All the reviewers recommended the paper for publication if the reviews were addressed satisfactorily.
The editor, looking at the reviews, mailed stating a major revision of the paper is needed before re-submitting the paper.
My question is, what does this mean, in terms of the chances that my article is accepted, when I re-submit it after making the corrections suggested by the reviewers?
In general, I would like to know what goes in the editor's mind when he suggests minor revision/ major revision etc. If an article needs major revision, will it be reviewed again? How do these translate into chances of the article being accepted?<issue_comment>username_1: In my field (chemistry), the practice is: for those journals that make a clear distinction between minor and major revision requests, **“major revision” means that the paper will have to undergo further review after revision**, usually by the same referees, while “minor revision” means that while changes should be made, no further reviewing is needed.
Not all journals make this distinction, however: for some, the need for further reviewing will be decided by the editor upon reading your response to the reviewers’ comments.
---
For example, here are screenshots of the web interface facing the reviewer of ACS and RSC journals when he has to fill in his review. You can see that the categories are different for different journals.
[Example 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn1Zq.png):
>
> **Recommendation**
>
>
> * This paper represents a significant new contribution and should be published as is.
> * This paper is publishable subject to minor revisions noted. Further review is not needed.
> * This paper is probably publishable, but major revision is needed.
> * Reconsider as an article in [redacted].
> * This paper is not recommended because it does not provide any new physical insights.
> * This paper is not recommended because the material is not appropriate for [redacted].
> * While the work is good and publishable, a more appropriate journal is recommended such as [textbox]
>
>
>
[Example 2](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VWwm1.png):
>
> **How would you rate this article?**
>
>
> * Very significant (top 10%)
> * Significant (top 10-25%)
> * Routine (top 25-50%)
> * Poor/Unacceptable (bottom 50%)
>
>
> **If you have indicated that the article should be reconsidered after revision, do you need to re-review the scientific aspects of the revised article?**
>
>
> * Yes
> * No
>
>
> **Recommendation**
>
>
> * Accept
> * Minor Revision
> * Major Revision
> * Reject and Resubmit
> * Reject
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 said, a major revision will lead to another round of review, where your answer to the first review will be taken into account. It doesn't guarantee you that your paper will be accepted, but if you address correctly the remarks (and not only in your answer, but also in the paper), you might stand fair chances. In other words, it's worth working on the paper to improve it!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: To my experience, major revision in general leads to the acceptance of a manuscript reviewed and re-reviewed for several rounds. Minor revision may undergo referee evaluation; however, in most cases, the editor accepts the paper without sending the revised manuscript to the reviewer. In fine, a careful revision, whether it's for major or minor, brings your paper accepted by the editor. Let us keep in mind that satisfying the queries of reviewers is always difficult especially for those journals indexed in PubMed. Therefore, if the paper is initially nominated for the major revision, it means that the work has sufficient novelty to be published.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: dont forget that some papers propose a reject and resubmit as a standard...that way, they artificially decrease the time between submitted paper and published paper, which is a simple trick.
So reject and resubmit does often NOT mean that they did not like it...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: If the reviewers have done their job right, and we must assume they have, then the actual to-do list will in and of itself be an accurate gauge of the workload.
So if your policy is honesty: to try and do as much as you possibly can, never pretend you addressed issues when in fact you haven't, and only baulk at suggestions that are unreasonable and or mistaken... then you are in the clear, regardless of which term the editor used to qualify the revision.
However, if your policy is to do as little as possible, try to fix fundamental problems by means of reshuffling material, blow smoke in your rebuttal by discrediting the reviewers and sundry tricks of that nature, then understand that **major** means **You really need to address and redress what the refs are concerned about here.**
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/10/02 | 484 | 2,001 | <issue_start>username_0: Does doing multidisciplinary research enhance one's employment opportunities compared to doing a degree in "basic" sciences?
For example, is a Ph.D. in Nano-science/Nano-technology in any way better than a Ph.D. in Physics or Chemistry, considering employment in India or in Asia? Would like to hear perspectives from other regions as well.
(In India, the basic qualification for employment in universities or affiliated colleges, as Assistant Professor is M.Sc. with UGC-NET or a Ph.D. in the relevant subject. Multidisciplinary research is available only in major research institutes and a limited number of universities.)<issue_comment>username_1: This does not fully answer your question, but it is certainly one consideration.
Multidisciplinary theses are often examined by multidisciplinary committees.
Examining such theses is difficult, especially if the committee has no experience examining multidisciplinary theses.
A consequence is that you will often be forced to conform to the conventions of different communities. In addition, the chemistry committee member may not see the thesis as a chemistry thesis and the sociology committee member may not see the thesis as a sociology thesis, because it lies somewhere in between the two fields and cannot be a complete thesis in both fields.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am a PhD student in Computational Science, which is an interdisciplinary major spanning mathematics, computer science, and engineerning. We are often pegged with the label "jack of all trades, but master of none" because we are a relatively new major with out well-established guidelines or rules judging the merit of work. Often, we are required to accept a "home department" whose quality judgment rules dominate. I'm not sure if this is the case for all interdisciplinary programs, but it helps alleviate the grey area and ensures that the work is evaluated according to a well-established criterion.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/02 | 1,063 | 4,370 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it acceptable to list the journals you have reviewed papers for on your CV? Is it common? Do you think it’s recommended?
On the one hand, it shows that you are engaged in this necessary part of scientific research that is peer-review. On the other hand, it sounds a bit useless, because everyone actually reviews papers for journals, and it is actually an unverifiable information (reviewers are confidential).<issue_comment>username_1: >
> On the one hand, it shows that you are engaged in this necessary part
> of scientific research that is peer-review.
>
>
>
That's one of the major reasons why people list it. If your CV is being viewed as part of a performance review or hiring decision, or even for awards, this constitutes "service to the community" and indicates that you're a good citizen.
It's a noisy signal for the reasons you indicate, and so it doesn't carry a whole lot of weight compared to things like technical committee memberships and leadership roles, but it's part of the larger picture. Moreover, for more junior researchers who haven't yet had the chance to take on leadership roles, this is a good signal of service.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would say that being asked by a journal to review an article is an indicator of esteem and for that reason, suitable and useful for inclusion in your CV.
With regard to confirming - or otherwise - whether or not you did indeed act as a referee for a journal, I would expect that anyone who wanted to verify this could ask the journal in question. Which specific articles that you reviewed could, properly, remain confidential. However, disclosing the information that you acted as a referee for the journal would not, as far as I can see, break any confidentiality policy.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I did this in the earlier stages of my career, when every little bit of CV weight helped. But as the number grew, and as I did other more significant things, I removed all traces of reviewing.
You need to show that you are involved in the community when you are young and starting out. Later other aspects will be more important.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I will essentially repeat the answer I gave [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2944/inclusion-of-irrelevant-background-on-cv-after-career-change/2949#2949). 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. 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.
When I would include this information depends on the purpose of the CV and your previous experience. If you are giving a talk and someone asks you for a CV, then I would leave it off. If you are applying for a job and it is your only evidence of service, I would leave it in.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: It is accepted, common and, yes, recommended. Being asked to review means your knowledge in a field is acknowledged and sought by others. The details you provide is up to you. I list the journals I have reviewed for in impact factor order, but it can be any order. I do not provide the number of reviews for each but the total for all. There is no reason to provide more than number of reviews and names of journals.
You have a point in that this information is unverifiable in many circumstances. In my field it is, however, common to be known as a reviewer (you have a choice). How the information is used is up to those who read the CV but I think most people will assume you have not falsified your CV (and that assumption goes for the remainder of your CV as well).
In the end, the art of writing your CV is to add anything that can reflect positively on your (in this case) scientific merits and reviewing is such a task. I also include reviews I have done for large funding organisations (e.g. NERC, UK, and NSF, US) as well as evaluations for promotions etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I know I am late to this, but I want to add that "*actually an unverifiable information*" is no longer *necessarily* true. You can verify peer-review work via publons and apparently ORCID (<https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/126707/134392>).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/03 | 966 | 4,013 | <issue_start>username_0: PhD supervisors usually get paid to supervise. They also have the prestige of having lots of students under their belt.
It's common to also have co-supervisor (I think it's mandatory in many fields, in Australia at least). What do these people get in return for their services? Put another way: if I'm asking someone to be my PhD supervisor, expecting them to help me out a whole lot for the next 3-4 years, what do I have to offer them?<issue_comment>username_1: Co-supervisors play different roles, which may vary from individual to individual. Sometimes they are there as a backup, either in case things go wrong with the main supervisor, or if the student needs someone else to talk to. They can read the papers (and eventual thesis) of the student and may even participate in the research, adding a different perspective. In some cases, they can be more active than the supervisor (this is often the case if the co-supervisor is a post doc). Often they will be a part of the committee assessing the thesis in the end.
What does the co-supervisor get out of it? Well, a tick on his/her CV. Publications. Experience dealing with students. Contacts. Ideas. And work. In any case, it is part of what an academic is paid to do.
The real question should be: what do I, as a PhD student, get out of having a co-supervisor?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Dave's remark on switching to the student's shoes and contemplating what you can get out of a co-supervisor is, in my opinion, a very useful one and should be of primary concern to students.
Let me put some personal perspective on this. I, as a senior post-doc, act as a co-supervisor of two PhD students (with some international twist to it within the EU context) and have colleagues who do the same, hence my observations below. Of course my view is one of a junior researcher, so take it with a grain of salt.
My benefits from being a co-supervisor are the following, in the order of subjective importance:
1. **new horizons**: the students act as *drivers* and *catalysts* of research topics I do not necessarily care for in a very personal and deep manner. It means that I can broaden my horizons and get somebody pushing me towards learning something new. That is a good thing for me as a curious person, as well as for my career.
2. **publication record**: given the first point, obviously, if the students work well and our collaboration works well too, since I get as much influence on their work as they allow me, or ask me to, we get together some useful stuff done and get papers published. I would stress the word "together", where I rather take the passenger's seat and try to help wherever necessary, but the crucial decisions are student's. The finished and delivered projects, as well as papers are obviously a good thing for both of us, too.
3. **project leadership experience**: often the collaboration is in a context of a project, where, as the more senior guy,I would take the role of a project manager, or a team leader. Of course this gives me plus points to the CV as well, not speaking about learning how to do this kind of work. Another good thing for my career.
4. **soft skills**: by doing the above and by that closely collaborating with people with whom my bond is tighter than just a joint interest (as it would be with a member of my community from a different institution), in a way, we are supposed to work out our ways along each other. At least for me, that is a good training too and good for my life and career, whatever twist should it take in the future.
5. should the collaborating partner become a friend of mine during the process, I would add it as a benefit too. But obviously this one is not everybody's piece of cake.
All in all, the points above boil down to a single one: ***being a co-supervisor means for me to become and act as a senior buddy to the student and prepares me for running my own lab/group, should it become reality one day.***
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/10/03 | 1,480 | 6,596 | <issue_start>username_0: Lately I've been reading lots of statistics books. Many of them have exercises after each chapter that I'm eager to solve, but I'm a beginner and can't solve most of them, and those that I think I can solve I can't check because there are no solutions and no solution manuals available.
I think the point in providing exercises without solutions is that this way the book can be used in class, where the teacher can use them as homework assignments. However, I'm self-learning and have no teacher to ask/to correct my work.
This frustrates me. I like solving stuff, but without knowing even if my solutions are correct (left alone anything beyond that) it's no fun.
What is the best way to deal with this?
Are there any resources on the internet where solutions for the more popular books could be found maybe? Should I trust that trying to solve them is the most instructional part anyway and let go of my childish craving for seeing my and the book's answer are identical?<issue_comment>username_1: An inability to confidently answer the questions in a text book in general is an indication of not having mastered the material.\* If you are not 100% confident that you are solving the problems correctly, go back and read the material again. You will not be able to use the skills in research unless you know the material without an answer key.
\*For a graduate class I used to teach there was a problem in the textbook that I could not solve. No matter how I thought about the problem, some information was always missing. I am friends with the author so emailed him for a solution set. I was too embarrassed to admit I couldn't solve the problem and figured the answer key would be helpful anyways. The answer for the problem in question was "Not possible with supplied information."
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> What is the best way to deal with this?
>
>
>
The best way to deal with the uncertainty is to go through other works (textbooks, videos, examples etc) that contains the subject area for which problem you are trying to solve. Make certain that these works does have answer sets that you can compare your work to. Then, once you have gained the confidence and more experience in solving the problem set, go to the original textbook and do the questions again. In theory you should be more confident that your answers are correct/incorrect.
As an example. Lets say you are working through math textbook1, the algebra chapter. You do all the algebra questions, however textbook1 does not contain the answers for the algebra chapter hence you are not as confident that you have the correct answers. What you should do is to find math textbook2 that contains a chapter on algebra with questions that contains answers. Work through the examples in textbook2 and confirm that your answers and methods you followed to obtain the answers are correct. Once you are confident you have a proper understanding of the work, doing the questions in textbook1 should be easier and you will be in a better position to know if your answers are correct.
Another alternative would be to use software to confirm that your answers are correct. E.g. math problem? use SAGE to confirm the answer. Bear in mind that the software may only provide an answer and not the method on how to get to the answer. But this can be used to your advantage in the scenario that your answer is incorrect, hence you could deduce that the you are not following the prescribed solution method correctly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Find examples on the internet that do contain detailed solutions for the concept you're trying to understand.
This can be from pdf files of solutions posted online for a homework, other textbooks, forum posts or even youtube videos.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Some grad students/advanced undergrads tutor for spare money. I imagine it wouldn't cost too much to convince someone to grade your "homework" for you and provide suggestions. It would even be cheaper if you can find someone already TAing a relevant class. [This works better if you are physically near a university, but could potentially be done online. Just make sure to look for someone who is advertising - academics occasionally get "I want you to tutor my child" emails that are scams.]
This would add up over time, but at $10/hr or so, it might be cheaper than buying a more popular book with well-known solutions, and it would serve as an external reference point.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Pick some problems that you're most interested in and attempt to write up full solutions.
Perhaps you will feel 100% confident in your answer. If so, great, and move on.
Otherwise, you will get stuck. Either you won't know how to solve the problem, or you won't know how to verify that your solution is correct.
Try to answer these: meta-questions yourself: *why* can't you solve the problem? *why* can't you verify that the answer is correct yourself?. This process will probably involve re-reading the material that was supposed to prepare you to answer the question. It will often involve convincing yourself that you understand terms fully. If you are still stuck, ask for help in a constructive way. A great way to know if you are asking for help in a good way is if you can write a good question on a StackExchange site. If there is no one around to ask, you can literally ask on a StackExchange site.
This takes a while and you'll answer less questions, but it means that you will know something more important than whether or not you are right: you will know why you're right.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: I abandon and don't pick the book up if it does not have the answers, whether explicitly or implicitly earlier on in the text, unless the answers can be achieved through an internet search. Why? Because an important part of becoming an expert in something is having the confidence in the answers you give, and that can't be achieved if no one ever confirms your answers.
I also think that it makes learning less fun. You can get stuck and lose the drive to learn since you never understood those few questions in that book. It also wastes quite a lot of time which could be spent more wisely, or you may not even realise your mistake.
People often fail an exam due to stress which maybe partly is due to lack of confidence, rather than lack of knowledge. There is many books which would support a self-learner better than one intended for teachers who already have that confidence - at times wrongly held.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/03 | 597 | 2,548 | <issue_start>username_0: This summer I graduated from college, majoring in physics, but for reasons outside my academic career, I won't be able to attend graduate school for at least a couple of years. Despite that, I'd rather not neglect my physics education until grad school becomes possible.
I realize that a B.Sc. doesn't mean I should be able to read all the latest articles coming from the frontiers of research. However, I'd like to keep track of current affairs in physics to both be in touch with my field, and to help me decide on which sub-field I will focus once I return to the academia, and perhaps even decide where to go and under who to study. What would you recommend is the best way to do this, and what are the resources available that I should be aware of? (Note: I will probably not have access to paid scientific publications after I receive my diploma in the next few months)
Also, I wouldn't want my physics skills to rust in the meantime. Apart from participating here on the physics stack exchange, do you know of any good resources for physics questions/riddles/puzzles, hopefully at the appropriate level for a college graduate, so I can spend some spare time solving those to stay in intellectual shape in the next few years?<issue_comment>username_1: As stated in the comment above, the only way is to stay involved. I would suggest reading as much as you can, particularly in the subfields in which you hope to specialize one day. If possible, try to stay in touch with professors you know from undergrad, and attend their journal clubs to stay in the research field.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am in this same situation. Here are some thoughts I have:
In order to retain the skills we learned as undergraduates, we have to practice them much like we had to 'practice' problem sets for assignments. I think that the MIT open courseware is an excellent tool for reminding and practicing.
Physicists don't write papers about stuff other physicists know. Most (or all) of what's in a paper could be new and unfamiliar to the majority. A BS does not bring you up to speed with the physics community (my degree barely got me into the 20th century) so there is still a good deal of study before you could pick a paper and read it with ease. Continuing with your own studies by advancing your knowledge of physics will do a lot to help you understand what is in these papers. Reading the titles of recent Arxiv papers is a fun pass time; you can sit down and read any that perk your interest.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/10/04 | 4,350 | 17,530 | <issue_start>username_0: I am preparing to give a conference presentation from scratch.
What is an effective ratio of introduction / methods / results / conclusion slides?
How can I balance the details of research without loosing the audience on key points?
In my experience, 90% of conference talks are dull and there may be one or two at any given conference that are really inspiring. What makes a "great" talk?<issue_comment>username_1: Consider the point of the talk; you want to convey to the audience what it is you did and what your results were. Similar to a paper, you'll want just enough background to bring those who aren't familiar with your subfield up to speed, and barely any conclusions as the audience will draw their own conclusions.
With that in mind, you'll want something similar to the following:
* 1-2 min — background
* 5-6 min — methods
* 3-4 min — results
* 1 min — conclusions, thanks, etc
Note that you'll probably want to leave some time for questions, so you should err on the side of shorter rather than longer.
From my experiences, you will want to *really* prepare for this. As discussed in more detail in [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/757/73), this is really the main forum for you to sell your work. You'll want to make sure you put forward your best possible face. All the usual points related to public speaking apply here as well: talk slower (yes, slower... slower than that, even), be concise, be clear, make good use of slides, etc.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> How can I balance the details of research without losing the audience on key points?
>
>
>
From my perspective, the key to giving a 15 minute talk is to omit all of the details. Many audience members don't care, the few who do can read your paper, and in any case it's impossible to convey any serious details clearly and correctly in such a short time. If you try, then much of the audience will stop paying attention; you'll end up wasting their time and missing a great opportunity to present your work. Instead, your goal should be to ensure that everyone leaves with some understanding of what you've done, and that some of them are inspired to learn more.
This means you should focus on the big picture. What did you do, how and why did you do it, and what have we learned from it? In mathematics, I'd focus on context, motivation, definitions, theorem statements, examples, and intuition. It's OK to give a brief proof outline or sketch, but nothing detailed or complicated. If you can't summarize it in a few sentences, it's too complicated.
There are various ways short talks can go wrong. For example, some of them try to compress 30 minutes of content into 15 minutes by talking fast and barely explaining anything, while others simply omit the background and context needed to understand the presentation. However, there's a common difficulty behind many bad talks: they focus on the speaker's desires and goals rather than the audience's. Ultimately, you need to design your presentation to fit the background and interests of the audience and the time available, rather than what you wish you could tell them.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: While 15 minutes is on the longer side for what I'm about to suggest, I think it's still useful.
In a 15 minute presentation you don't have time to think of things to say on the fly. It's important that you have a story nailed down fairly tight. While you don't need a full script for what you're going to say, you should have a fairly detailed plan of what you're going to say (even upto key sentences and transitions).
As others have pointed out, you'll have to eliminate most details. **THIS IS OK !** The audience will only (at best) get a high level idea of what your work is about and only the briefest glimmer of a technique or tool. So in order to decide what to say, you should ask yourself the following:
>
> Why should I (the listener) care about your work ?
>
>
>
Answering this question will help you decide what to keep and what to throw.
As for your last question, a great talk is a strange mix of details, high level concepts, and inspiration. If it were easy to describe it, all talks would be great :). But if you shoot for a talk that people will remember, that is both more attainable, and easier to construct.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: (edited to extract the key points from the main reference)
[Ian Parberry's guidelines](http://larc.unt.edu/ian/pubs/speaker.pdf) were always essential for me. Firstly I will give a personal replies to your answers and subsequently I will extract the main points of the Ian's guidelines which are the basis for my answer.
Personal perspective
====================
>
> What is an effective ratio of introduction / methods / results / conclusion slides?
>
>
>
My own rule of thumb is to allocate 2-3 minutes per slide, which gives max. 6-8 slides *including* the envelope (the "title" and the "end+questions?" ones). That is, we have about 5 real content slides of which for introduction I allocate 1 for motivation&context, and 1 to problem definition.
The body gets whatever it needs, but shouldn't exceed 4 slides, with at least a single one dedicated to a sketch of a *worked example*. The audience doesn't need to know how exactly I am doing the magic, I must however make them trust me and see what I am doing as *plausible*.
The summary/conclusion/future work gets 1 slide.
>
> How can I balance the details of research without loosing the audience on key points?
>
>
>
*Stress the motivation, the relevance of the problem and only sketch your solution so that an example which you provide will be plausible enough.*
Your talk is an advertisement for your paper. You are doing your best to assure that people learn something and you *imprint* some key points in their heads (the problem description and a sketch of the main idea solving it). You don't need to explain the details, just sketch the main principles. You want to compel the audience to either read your paper that day in the evening and base their own work on it (hence citations!), or ensure that sometime in the future when they will face a problem, they'll remember that there was this guy speaking about something along the same lines, so let's check it (hence possible citations!).
>
> What makes a "great" talk?
>
>
>
For me, it's **grounding in reality**. Show me what impact your stuff has on me. Speak about an application I might care for, even if it will be only a hypothetical one. If the result cannot be framed as a machine, or software, such as a lot of (non-computational) game-theory, then speak about implications to the society. Strike whatever chord, which makes your results **tangible**. It all boils down to answering a single question for every single person in the audience: **Why should I care?!**
But even if you do the all the positive advice right, there's a more important point, namely what you shouldn't do. For example I tend to speak a lot (see my posts at this site :-) ). My main drill during preparation of a talk is to throw away everything non-essential. Moreover, I am often writing down notes about *what **not** to say*. Many otherwise great talks are ruined by the presenter **speaking too much\* and \*\*showing off**. I don't want to be impressed by your smartness, or charisma per se, I want you to simply **educate me**!
---
And finally the key points from the [Ian Parberry's guidelines](http://larc.unt.edu/ian/pubs/speaker.pdf) for giving a good talk, emphasis mine.
General advice
==============
1. *Communicate the Key Ideas*: select 1-2 main high-level ideas and present them in a **crisp and crystal clear** way.
2. *Don’t get Bogged Down in Details*: do not even attempt to discuss the details, unless you you have brisk answers to possible questions you open that way.
3. *Structure Your Talk* & *Use a Top-down Approach*: go the least-surprise path, i.e, the audience needs a story a wants to be able to follow it. The structure should stay crisp: 1) solid motivation/intro, 2) main points/body, 3) technicalities, if really necessary, 4) conclusion.
4. *Know Your Audience*: allows you to skip some common-knowledge in the audience, as well as select what is important to them and what do they care for.
Structure of the talk
=====================
I added the emphasis to the points which I consider crucial.
The Introduction
----------------
1. **Define the Problem**
2. **Motivate the Audience**
3. Introduce Terminology
4. Discuss Earlier Work
5. **Emphasize the Contributions of your Paper**
6. Provide a Road-map
The Body
--------
1. **Abstract** the Major Results
2. Explain the **Significance** of the Results
3. **Sketch** a Proof of the Crucial Results
Technicalities
--------------
1. Present a Key Lemma
2. Present it Carefully
The Conclusion
--------------
1. Hindsight is Clearer than Foresight
2. Give Open Problems
3. Indicate that your Talk is Over
---
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: I think the other answers state it quite clearly: eliminate most details! Some key points I've found across different sources and observed at talks I've enjoyed:
* You don't want to *explain* your paper, you want the audience to want to read your paper.
* You need to be comfortable with your talk. I've attended great short highly technical talks, and great short high-level talks. What made the talks great was not the technical content, but the capability of the speaker to convey his/her enthusiasm for the content.
* I particularly like AnonynousMathematician's "[bad talks] focus on the speaker's desires and goals rather than the audience's". At a conference, the audience is not here to judge you, or to evaluate your work, but to attend an hopefully interesting talk. The point is not to show how good you are.
* It might depend on the technical field, but a good way to interest an audience is to present them with a problem, usually illustrated with a simple example, and then to give the guidelines of how you solved that problem.
Finally, read many advices you can find on this topic. For instance, I'd suggest you the page of [<NAME>](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/giving-a-talk/giving-a-talk.htm), recently pointed out by [username_4](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/3529/102).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: A nice discussion on this can be found here: <http://presentations.catalysis.nl/presentations/presentation.php>.
If your talk is in mathematics, you might also want to look at <https://mathoverflow.net/questions/29866/presenting-a-paper-dos-and-donts>.
Some other tips I've heard:
* Use one slide per minute. For a 15-minute talk, use only 15 slides.
* The first part of your talk should be understandable by any adult (if your target audience consists of adults). The next part should be understandable by your peers (same field as yours, e.g., mathematics, but not necessarily the same subfield, e.g., number theory). The next part should be understandable by your peers working in the same subfield. The last part should be understandable by you. (Although some believe this last part is too much).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I think in *any* conference presentation (whether it is 10 minutes or 60 minutes), there are only two parts that are absolutely necessary:
* **What is the problem that you studied.** Explain it as carefully as possible, in the simplest possible form; make it as easy to understand as possible. Do not assume that some parts of the setting are obvious to the audience; make everything explicit.
* **What is the new result that you obtained.** Again, explain it as carefully as possible, in the simplest possible form. Proceed slowly; even if you could state the result in 5 seconds, spend much more time on it. Make sure the audience has enough time to digest what was your new main contribution.
If these parts necessarily take 15 minutes, it is OK. I do not think anything else is absolutely necessary.
Of course there are lots of things that would be nice to have, time permitting: background, motivation, related work, a very rough overview of some methods that you used to obtain the results, conclusions, etc. But none of these parts are as important as explaining what was the research question and what was the new result.
---
By the way, if it appears that this approach results in a boring talk, most likely *your own idea of what is your research question is wrong*. Think big, go one level up.
**Example:** You have studied thingy X (something technical and complicated) and your work shows that X has property Y (something easy to understand), and this is cool, as it is the first example of a thingy with property Y.
**Bad:**
* *Problem:* We study the properties of thingy X. (But explaining X takes forever. It is complicated, technical and boring. And why would you want to study it anyway.)
* *Result:* We show X has property Y. (But now you would still have to explain what is Y. You are already running out of time, and you have already lost your audience.)
* You feel like you would have wanted to talk about motivation, related work, and methods, but you are already overtime, and nobody is following anymore.
**Good:**
* *Problem:* Is there a thingy with property Y? (Now this was much easier to explain. You have got plenty of time to also mention that this is a famous open question posed by Professor Bigname in 1950s.)
* *Result:* Yes, we give the first example of such a thingy! (That was easy. And now to make sure that everyone gets the big news, you can spends some time explaining that in prior work others have come close, but nobody has been quite there.)
* And now you still have lots of time left, so you can tell something about the particular thingy X that you put together. All of this is extra. You can be sketchy, just give some highlights of the main ideas. Everyone in the audience already knows where you are aiming at and what is the big picture; they can fill in the details or look it up in your paper if it matters.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: An interesting comment about presentations can be found [here](http://matt.might.net/articles/academic-presentation-tips/). The author is professor of Computer Science, thus some things may not apply in all cases. Moreover, I think that the advice is very extreme, which actually makes it interesting.
In the case of the area of management, [this resource](http://www.unc.edu/~healdric/Workpapers/Exciting_meetings.pdf) may be helpful.
These notes were the result of a session at one of the Academy of Management meetings.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: There are many good answers. I especially like the second half of the answer from @username_4, especially as concerns the structure of a short talk. I disagree with most the time amounts given. I have found great success with:
* 7 minutes of background
* 5 minutes combined methods, results, conclusions
* 3 minutes of questions
If a separate time is given to questions, then 9 to 6 in favor of background.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Some things to think about (from the point of view of a mathematician, but I hope some of this might be relevant in other fields too): Does your main result have a special case or two that would be easier for your audience to understand than the general result (without being trivial)? If so, you might just present that (or those) special case(s), and add at the end one sentence to the effect that your full result is more general.
Does your result require terminology that people might not know? If so, does it really *require* that terminology, or could you perhaps get by without it? If you *really* need the terminology, budget enough time to explain it and, if possible, relate it to something your audience already knows.
The background information (previous results, open questions) that motivate your work is likely to be too much to present in full in the limited time available. Select just enough of that information to be understandable and to provide *some* (not necessarily all) motivation for your work. Having presented some motivation, you can add one sentence saying that there is additional motivation, which you don't have time to explain in the talk.
In two places, I've suggested adding a single sentence saying "there's more"; you should indicate your willingness (or even eagerness) to discuss the "more" later with anyone who is interested.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: My goal when giving a talk is to convey information in a way none have presented or expressed before. The constraints being:
* easy to understand for complete novices
* interesting for experts
My mindset is also to aim for 10-12 minutes when allocated 15 minutes. It is always better to finish early than it is to go over your time. It **ALWAYS** leaves a bad taste in my mouth when a speaker exceeds their allotted time. It's disrespectful and inconsiderate of other people's time.
I also subscribe to the *1 slide per 1 minute MAX* philosophy. In terms of time per section (borrowing from @username_1's reply), but whichever section has your contribution then the time spent there should be doubled (e.g., I assume in the Methods section):
* 2 min **Background**
* 4 min **Methods**
* 2 min **Evaluation**
* 2 min **Results**
* 2 min **Conclusions**
* 1 min **Future Work**
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/04 | 504 | 2,210 | <issue_start>username_0: A professor requested that I exchange my paper with another student, to get their suggestions. Every student in the course must exchange their papers in this way, before the teacher will look at it. I have never encountered another professor with such a policy and am concerned of the possibility that a student might claim my paper to be their own. What steps can I take to guard against such a possibility?<issue_comment>username_1: You could ask the other student to be part of the study. If he/she does some substantial thinking about methods, content, writing etc., you can offer him/her to be co-author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Sign and date a copy of your work, seal it in an envelope (using tamper-evident seals) and have it received by your teacher (that is, give it to your teacher then have your teacher sign a note that he/she received the envelope). This will serve as evidence in case another student claims your work is his/hers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This seems like a reasonable request by the instructor. Without understanding why you are feeling vulnerable, it is not possible to provide an answer. It is worth talking to someone (possibly the instructor or maybe your advisor or a therapist) about why you are feeling vulnerable.
As for protecting yourself, emailing the document to/from your university email account is probably sufficient as documentation. The next level up would be to email the student the document with the instructor cc'd. This way you are proving you shared your paper (and gaining documentation). Anything more and you will likely be revealing your insecurities, which might lead to more insecurities.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Email the work to someone (or yourself) well before you hand it over.
Also, try to relax. It is not likely someone will try to pass your work off as theirs because they would be aware that you were going to hand the same piece of writing in and that would lead to trouble for both of you.
I think the reason he is getting you to do it is to get you used to how things work in a research environment. So it is not such a bad thing, maybe.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/10/04 | 1,209 | 4,807 | <issue_start>username_0: Most academics are involved to some level in teaching classes and evaluating students. I never got a proper education in teaching, unlike what we had for research, and neither did any of the lecturers and professors in my community: we learnt on the job, and for the most part reproduce what we have seen others do.
There is one area where I feel this is not enough, and I could be better: evaluations. We mostly do two sorts of evaluations: written exams (exercises with series of questions) and short bibliographic or research projects (ending with a short oral defense). In addition, many high school teacher friends tell me that research on the evaluation of knowledge acquisition (or student assessment) has made huge progresses in the last 20 or 30 years, that have completely changed the way *they* teach and evaluate students. Yet, I don't think things has changed so much in higher education, and I don't find around me any tools (lectures, seminars, tutorials, what-ever) to learn of this topic.
So: **How can one learn to better evaluate student’s skills and knowledge acquisition? What are good (and modern) resources out there on educational assessment as applied to higher education?**<issue_comment>username_1: A good place to start to fill gaps due to lack of teacher training is with a general book or two on the topic. I was surprised when I read these at how different current attitudes and approaches are compared to when I was a student. Consider:
* <NAME> and <NAME>' [*Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student does*](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0335242758)
* <NAME>'s [*Learning to Teach in Higher Education*](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0415303451).
One of the key issues these books talk about regarding assessment is the notion of **constructive alignment**, which is ensuring that the assessment aligns appropriately with the learning outcomes of the course. In these books (and others) plenty of advice is given to help you better align your assessment.
Another important issue is that assessment guides the approach to learning. If students know that they only need to learn a whole bunch of facts, perhaps based on their examination of past exams, then they will adopt a shallow approach to learning and not really understand the material. Trying to encourage students to adopt a deep approach to learning is extremely important and is strongly influenced by the approach taken to assessment. These books also focus on this issue.
After reading those,
I recommend the following books, which both focus on assessment. They have given me plenty of ideas:
* [*Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches*](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/033520242X) edited by <NAME> and <NAME>, Open University Press, 1999.
* [*Developing Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide*](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0335221076)
<NAME> (Author), <NAME>, Open University Press, 2007.
They both written in the context of British universities, but I'm sure the ideas are fairly universally applicable.
There are also plenty of journals of higher education, if you want to get access to cutting edge research in higher education. Some are devoted to assessment, and others are more general:
* [Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education](https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/caeh20)
* [Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability](https://www.springer.com/journal/11092)
* [Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation](https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/)
* [The Journal of Higher Education](https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/90)
* [The Review of Higher Education](https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/172)
* [The Journal of General Education](https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/89)
* [The Journal of Excellence in College Teaching](http://celt.muohio.edu/ject/)
I'm pretty sure that this only scrapes the surface.
Finally, the Google returned some resources, which lead to more detailed resources:
* <https://www.aacu.org/>
* <http://assessmentcommons.org/view-all-resources/>
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Depending on country, your university may provide training. In the UK all teaching staff must obtain a Post Graduate Certificate in Higher Education. While I still do not fully understand the process, it seems that this is nearly a Masters in Education. I would check with your office of professional development to see what courses they offer. You may also want to look at auditing a course in the Department of Education. Although in my experience Departments of Education are often rated as having poor teaching (this may obviously be due to student bias).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/04 | 600 | 2,317 | <issue_start>username_0: Does anyone know of a website or resource that identifies the nearest journal neighbours to journal X (any specific journal) in terms of content (perhaps defined by some distance metric defined on article keywords?). In other words, if I am rejected by journal X, which journals might consider the same paper?<issue_comment>username_1: Indeed, there are tools that create maps of journals in a given area. Most of them are based on citation data, i.e. they consider that citations between articles of journal A and journal B are a good indicator of proximity of the two journals (and it seems like a good definition of “proximity”). If you are interested in the topic of how such maps are created, and how they can be analyzed, you can read on the topic. For example, see [“Seed journal citation network maps: A method based on network theory”](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22631/abstract) and related papers.
Now, regarding online tools available, a search lead me to [VOSViewer](https://web.archive.org/web/20141210145510/http://www.vosviewer.com:80/maps/) ([paper](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3)), which looks like it contains exactly what you want:
---
A final note: while such journal maps can be useful in discovering new journals in a field you don't know well, I will add that each journal is unique, and you have to learn about the journals in your field in order to increase your chances of success at publishing articles. It may, for example, tell you that two journals are very close in scope when they actually have very different editorial policies. *Read the editorial guidelines for the journals of your field* and, at least as importantly, *read papers of each journal* to get a feeling of what the actual policy in place are.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If your institution has access to Journal Citation Reports, there is a feature called *Related Journals* that will provide a list of titles similar to your selected title, based on citing and cited relationships. [Journal Citation Reports](http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/) is a subscription database provided by <NAME>ers
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/04 | 751 | 3,169 | <issue_start>username_0: I am wondering if a referee can reveal the title of the papers he/she has refereed for a journal (either by talking about it in the pub, posting it on facebook or another mean) after the decision has been made.
The reason for my question is that I have seen some people revealing titles of the papers they referee but I have not found an authoritative reference for judging this behaviour.<issue_comment>username_1: I looked up the policy of journals in the fields of physics and chemistry, and their policy regarding reviewers does not directly address your question. Most ethical guidelines say the same thing: **manuscripts sent for review are confidential**. For example, quoting from the [APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct](http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm):
>
> Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for competitive gain.
>
>
>
From the more loquacious [ACS Ethical Guidelines](http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/ethics/index.html):
>
> A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
>
>
>
This clearly covers the case of revealing the part (or any part of it) before it was published, as well as nonpublished parts of the paper (i.e., the published version is of course public, but anything else is still confidential).
However it seems to me that, narrowly read, there is material that this rule does not cover. For example, the text written by the reviewer is not indicated to be confidential (except insofar as it reveals part of the authors’ confidential material), and it seems clear that you retain the right to publish it. (Whether it's a good thing to actually do is another matter. Except in extreme situations, I would advise against it.)
**So, once a paper is published, are you allowed to reveal that you were a referee? I think so.** Is it a good thing? I don’t think it hurts anyone.
---
PS: I interpreted your “after the decision has been made” as meaning “after the paper is published”. In the interval of time between editorial decision and publication, it *is* clear that this information is confidential.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Don't do that.**
Everything related to reviewing is confidential.
You will certainly upset some **editors** if you reveal your identity to the authors without the editor's permission. (Remember that the authors usually know who was the editor. Perhaps the editors did not want the authors to know that they asked you to review the paper?)
More generally, there is nothing to gain by doing this, and everything (= your reputation) to lose. You do not want to do anything that someone might interpret as a violation of the confidentiality of the peer-review process. (Even if you had both the authors' and the editor's permission to publish this information, others might not know that.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/10/04 | 756 | 3,113 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm currently studying for an MSc in theoretical particle physics in Israel. After I finish it I would like to study for a PhD abroad.
In the UK it seems that a PhD degree does not generally require taking any courses. In the US, on the other hand, all of the PhD programs I checked require at least one or two years of coursework as part of the PhD studies, and the actual research only starts after that.
My question is: do you know whether universities in the US allow students with an MSc degree, who have already done most or all of the graduate courses as part of that degree (and got good grades), to begin research immediately instead of taking the courses again? I really don't want to repeat the courses and waste two years.<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on the department. I have been looking at various applied mathematics departments in the USA and all of them want PhD students to go through the coursework and obtain an MS, even if they already did a masters degree before.
I think in general, there is no chance to skip coursework. This is probably because different universities have different standards and syllabuses for the same course. And they want to ensure everyone is up to the same standard and have taken the same syllabus.
But do check with the department, there are always exceptions.
P.S.
However, it doesn't have to be a "waste" of two years. The level of the course might be higher and you are probably able to choose different courses to get broader experiences. If all else fails and you are able to ace all the courses with no problem, you can always spend the extra time looking for a thesis adviser or find research collaborators.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The answer greatly varies. I was in the same situation, and in my school, a Phd student with a previous MSC gets exemption from 3 courses out of the required 12.
In other schools (I think it was Stanford, but I might be wrong), the required amount of (real) classes for a Phd student, is 4.
As @username_1 said, the best way is to check with the school itself. The Graduate Students Office (GSO) should be able to give you the details or refer you to the right website (yet, many times the website is not 100% accurate..)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Even at schools that have course requirements, you may be able to satisfy some requirements by taking a proficiency exam instead of an entire course. Check with the department!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Many US schools generally offer a partial/full "course waiver" depending on the course load and syllabus of the previous MS degree.
However, there are some problems with MSc (by research) programs from the UK (i.e. anglo-saxon system), as such program does not require any course work.
I know one person in our lab who did MSc (by research) from the UK and had to complete a full course load during his PhD, it took almost 3 years to finish the course work (only, and getting a second MS), even being one of the most competent/experienced members in our lab.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/04 | 751 | 3,414 | <issue_start>username_0: I have started a MS program in Computer Engineering. This is my first year and it is a 2 year program. I want to do a master thesis about Machine Learning (I have an artificial intelligence and genetic algorithms background from my MS but I can work on different topics within Machine Learning).
I am interested in doing a thesis in collaboration with a company in industry. I'm hoping that working through a MS with them will increase the chance they consider me for a job after the end of the program.
Do companies ever publicize masters thesis proposals for students to work on with them?<issue_comment>username_1: From my experience, there do exist occasional Masters and PhD projects which are funded through industry grants; I personally interviewed for (but did not accept) a postdoctoral position based in a hospital funded by a medical device company. However, the position was not advertised as such, and the medical device company did not list this grant publicly. I suspect that any other similar positions (i.e., funded by industry) would not include this information in the advertisements.
I would suggest that you try a different tack. A number of companies will sponsor and pay for a masters degree once you've been working with them long enough. You may want to try talking to people in industry and finding whether you can take a job and then work towards your degree at a later point in time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Where can I find proposals from companies to work with them? Are there lists of such proposals available somewhere?
>
>
>
I am not aware of any such, but around me, several mid- and large-scale projects are done in a very close cooperation with industrial companies, also on machine learning. Even I am employed as a post-doc on such a project, from a large part financed by a company who is also the supposed user of the results. At least in the western EU, this is a frequent model in computer science and related technical disciplines.
One way, or another, to complete a master thesis you will need a supervisor from your university. In the case there are industrial cooperation projects in the area of your interest at your university, you should speak to the local project consortium member, basically one of the professors, or senior researchers at the relevant department. To find out whether such projects do exist at your university is again something to speak about with your local professors/faculty/research staff. After all, at least in places I am familiar with, working out a master topic without a tight connection to a project/theme at the department of your university is not the way to go, most probably even almost impossible. After all, you need a supervisor and the person needs to have an interest in the work. But of course, maybe in other parts of the world than I am active, things tick differently...
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: We have got many pressing topics for dissertations from various companies. They need solutions. We took the broad problems and created reach proposal and got approval from the companies. The graduate students in the Human Resource development are able to improve their problem-solving skills through the dissertation works. About 100 students completed the research. The company also provided the service of a manager. This is a win-win situation.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/10/05 | 1,387 | 5,518 | <issue_start>username_0: In an [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2022/can-i-show-my-co-author-the-final-version-of-an-accepted-publication-i-reviewed/2024#2024) to a question about the confidentiality of reviews, I basically said you cannot reveal information about the review until the paper is publicly available. This [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3591/are-the-referees-of-a-journal-allowed-to-reveal-the-title-of-the-papers-they-rev) about revealing information after publication is making me rethink my answer. The question I have is, *is the information (e.g., title, authors and abstract) that you are given to decide if you want to review confidential?*
It seems to me that the process of agreeing to do a review is NOT
1. Please review our reviewer guidelines (including confidentiality policies),
2. If you accept these guidelines please look at this abstract and let
us know if you want to review.
Rather, it seems it is
1. Please look at this abstract
2. If it interests you, please consider our review guidelines.
This suggests to me that the initial information (title, authors and abstract in a non double blind review) are not confidential.<issue_comment>username_1: Well, as you said, there is no rule that explicitly says that the information mentioned in a “invitation to review” is confidential. Yet, as with the related questions, there is a big grey area around the process of peer-review. Many people would expect this information to be kept confidential… and it does make sense: after all, the reason you gained access to what is (at that stage) privileged information is for the purpose that you may review it. It is part of the review process.
Let's see it another way: this situation is not so different from the case where you would accept a review, then drop it (write to the editor to pull out) upon learning that you won't have time to do it. Morally, those two situations are close to one another.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I checked the peer review policy of Nature and Science, I guess that should is the best we can get. The policy can be found [here](http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html), [here](http://www.nature.com/authors/gta.pdf) (both Nature) and [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/review.xhtml) (Science).
A bunch of relevant quotes from the Nature policies:
>
> As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential...
>
>
> Nature journals keep confidential all details about a submitted manuscript and do not comment to any outside organization ...
>
>
> Referees of manuscripts submitted to Nature journals undertake **in advance** to maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and any associated supplementary data.
>
>
>
And some from the Science review policy:
>
> Reviewers **are contacted before being sent a paper** and are asked to return comments within 1 to 2 weeks for most papers.
>
>
> The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document.
>
>
>
I would read it conservatively. That is, consider an abstract to be `a part of the manuscript`, hence the same rules governing general `manuscript` should apply. Apart from that, both journals state that **in advance** to being sent the manuscript, the (I guess still *potential*) reviewers agree to keep the matter confident.
I think an answer may also lie in the exact process handling review. First, a potential reviewer is invited and sees a title and possibly paper's authors. Then he/she has to log-in into a review system, but I guess, somewhere in the process accepts general terms and conditions which established the contract. And only then the reviewer sees the manuscript. I am not sure if all journals do it this way, but those I reviewed for did so. Well, besides some special issues handled outside the journal submission/review system, where the case would be unclear.
---
I just checked the reviewer invitations I received from journals in my field and I found that the only disclosed thing in the invitation e-mails was the submission's title. I must accept/decline to review and only afterwards I saw the manuscript, or its abstract.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To complement other answers and comments: indeed, as far as I can tell, from a quasi-legalistic viewpoint "consent" cannot be pushed on me by sending me something in email, e.g., an abstract and asking whether I'd review the article. Nevertheless, it is my firm impression that, there is a strong *expectation* that any such information is kept confidential in perpetuity, whether or not one agrees to referee/review.
Yes, I agree, there is something a touch unfair or burdensome about this, since one can imagine that a malicious editor could wreak havoc with one's work by sending a steady stream of one's competitors' as-yet-unpublished work... thus seemingly obliging one to disrupt one's own work... ?
And, yes, something like this does sometimes happen when one served as NSF reviewer (in the older system), especially, where work-in-progress is sometimes portrayed.
Despite the potential for abuse in having others put obligations upon us, it seems that the potential for abuse, in the line of "conflict of interest", is substantially greater if confidentiality is not essentially promised implicitly, and in perpetuity.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/10/05 | 2,467 | 10,354 | <issue_start>username_0: That is, should it be present tense or past tense?
Should there be a difference between the abstract, main body and the conclusion?
Does the field of publication have any impact?<issue_comment>username_1: The rules of thumb are:
* Established facts are reported in the present tense (“*The path of light follows Fermat's principle of least time*”). However, you should use the past tense when you refer to previous work in the field (“*Maxwell et al. demonstrated clearly in a laser cavity experiment that no mirror is perfect*”).
* The experiments, simulations or calculations you performed are narrated in the past tense (“*We dissolved the remaining solid in a 5:1 solution of acetone and benzonitrile, and heated to 200°C for three hours.*”)
* Discussion of the data presented in the paper uses the present tense (“*The results obtained, shown in Fig. 3, clearly emphasize that the cell colonies grew faster on pink toothbrushes than green ones. We attribute this to the color-sensitivity, or kawai factor.*”)
* Mathematical proofs are written using the present tense, because going through the proof occurs at the time of reading (“*From Eqn. 1, we derive the following system of inequalities*”).
Overall, the choice of tenses is actually pretty logical.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are two distinct general cases that bring up the question of, "Which tense should I use?", each of which follows different principles.
First, **are you describing research itself and ideas from research?** (This is what you are doing probably 99% of the time.) In this case, the principle that I follow is simple, regardless of whether I am describing what other people have done or describing my own work:
* **Historical occurrences should be in past tense.** "Historical" means anything that actually happened in the past, whether a procedure, an article publication, a statement made by anyone, or anything else that has actually happened.
* **Enduring truths should be in present tense.** "Enduring truth" in this context only means that the authors present such statements as ongoing facts in the past, present and future; it doesn't mean anything more than that. (In particular, even if you disagree with what some authors consider to be true, it is still an "enduring truth" in their minds, and so should be presented in present tense.)
The second case where tense is involved is trickier: **are you describing your own writing process as you are writing the article?** (Although you only do this 1% or less of the time, it leads to perhaps 80% of the confusion of the question as to which tense to use, so it is important to understand this.) The basic idea here is to anticipate your reader's expected or intended path of reading, which is what makes it so tricky. Here is the principle I follow here:
* **When describing anything you write in the current paragraph or any paragraph below, use present tense.** Future tense could also be correctly used for most things in paragraphs below, but not always. In particular, when referring to elements outside the main body of the text (such as appendices, references, footnotes, acknowledgements, etc.), you should always use present tense, since the reader should refer to such ancilliary sections simultaneously with reading the text. I find this a bit confusing, so it is simpler for me to only use present tense and never use future tense, which is perfectly acceptable.
* **When describing any thing you write in preceding paragraphs, use past tense.** The only exception is that when writing in appendices, you should refer to the main body of the text in present tense. (Technically, you should probably also use present tense if referring to the main body in other ancillary sections [references, footnotes, acknowledgements, etc.], but I never need to refer to the main body of the text in such sections.)
I now follow with several annotated examples to illustrate these points. Some of them are straightforward applications of the principles I have summarized above, though some could be argued as either present or past tense.
>
> **Literature review**
>
>
> AuthorA and AuthorB (Year) **studied** an interesting topic. They
> **applied** a cool methodology and **found** that certain surprising outcomes **are** what actually happen.
>
>
>
Comments:
* "AuthorA and AuthorB (Year) **studied** an interesting topic": The study occurred in the past, and so is in past tense.
* "They **applied** a cool methodology": The authors actually did some analysis in the past, and so it is in past tense.
* "and **found** that": The authors arrived at their results at a certain point in time in the past, when they made their conclusions; this is thus in past tense.
* "certain surprising outcomes **are** what actually happen": The authors concluded that their findings not only applied to their study, but indicate some general truths that would continue to apply in the future. Thus, as a description of ongoing reality, it is in present tense.
>
> **Methodology Section of My Own Article**
>
>
> We **gathered and analyzed** certain pertinent data in various stages. First, we **conducted** an extensive survey. The respondents of the survey **reported** that they **only partially agreed** with most of the statements in the survey instrument. Second, we **interviewed** other relevant respondents. The interviewees **enlightened** us as to some of the responses on the prior survey. Third, we **collected** biometric data from the brain electrodes attached to the interviewees during the interviews, which **was generally consistent** with what they **were actually saying** (except for some notable discrepancies, which we **discuss** in more detail below). Finally, we **applied** some cutting-edge combined quantitative-qualitative analyses to bring everything together and make sense of it all.
>
>
>
Comments:
* "We **gathered and analyzed**", "we **conducted**", "we **interviewed**", "we **collected**", "we **applied**": Statements of research methods or procedures that we actually did are past events; hence, they are in past tense.
* "The respondents of the survey **reported**", "The interviewees **enlightened** us", "biometric data ... **was generally consistent** with": Responses and results (whether by people, animals, plants, or inanimate objects) are reports of historical facts: they actually happened in the past. Thus, they should be in past tense.
* "The respondents of the survey ... **only partially agreed** with most of the statements in the survey instrument", "what they **were actually saying**": These are tricky. But even when you are reporting what people said to be enduringly true about themselves, their saying such things is a past historical statement. That is, if you were to ask them again today, they might have changed their minds. You can only report what they said as a statement made in the past. This is probably the trickiest point, and might be argued to rather be in present tense, though I personally don't think so.
* "notable discrepancies, which we **discuss** in more detail below": Here you are describing what you have written in the present article, that is, part of your own writing process. This should be in present tense.
>
> **Discussion Section of My Own Article**
>
>
> The respondents of our surveys and interviews **gave** us valuable responses that generally **confirmed** our hypotheses. We **conclude** from our analyses that the kind of people in our study generally **act** in the way that our hypotheses **claim**. However, the brain electrode readings **give** us a more nuanced understanding of our findings. They **indicate** that people **act** in that way only in certain circumstances. The appendix of this article **provides** more details on all this.
>
>
>
Here it gets quite tricky, with cases that might be argued either way. Comments:
* "respondents of our surveys and interviews **gave** us valuable responses": The respondents responded in the past.
* "generally **confirmed** our hypotheses": we conducted the tests of our hypotheses in the past. However, it could be argued to be "generally **confirm** our hypotheses", since the hypotheses remain confirmed eventoday and in the future by those historical tests.
* "We **conclude** from our analyses": Not only in the past, but now and in the future, each time we reassess our analyses, we continue to arrive at the same conclusions.
* "our hypotheses **claim**": Our hypotheses have not changed; they continue to make the same claims.
* "people in our study generally **act** in the way", "people **act** in that way": We extrapolate our findings not only to the people who responded in our study, but as a general finding concerning how that type of person continues to act.
* "the brain electrode readings **give** us a more nuanced understanding of our findings", "They **indicate** that": We are referring here not to the past fact of taking the readings, but to the ongoing fact of our interpretation of those readings.
* "The appendix of this article **provides** more details": This refers to a supplementary section of my own writing.
>
> **Appendix of My Own Article**
>
>
> In this appendix we **provide** more details about the analyses from the study. We **conducted** even fancier and more experimental analyses to better understand the results. Our supplementary analyses **revealed** some cases where the general trend **did not** apply. We **explain** our interpretation of these supplementary findings in the Discussion section of the article.
>
>
>
Comments:
* "In this appendix we **provide** more details": This is the writing process of the current section of the article.
* "We **conducted** even fancier and more experimental analyses", "Our supplementary analyses **revealed** some cases": These are procedures conducted in the past.
* "the general trend **did not** apply: This is a past finding from a past analyses. It might be argued to be an interpretation, in which case it should be in present tense.
* "We **explain** our interpretation of these supplementary findings in the Discussion section": This reference to the main body of the article should always be in present tense, since it is written in an appendix.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/10/05 | 1,326 | 5,770 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a new doctoral candidate of information and computer science and about to initiate my research, and typically collaborate with my supervisor and other group members. But seldom will a researcher limit his collaborators to those within the department he's in; he has to enlarge his network. I believe energetically participating in academic activities/events surely brings benefit. As a student, my quick thoughts are, for example, applying for internships at some research institutes, summoning team members for contests, or taking part in open source projects. Can you kindly share other experiences?<issue_comment>username_1: Of course, you’ll get there by engaging in a lot of activities where you will meet new people and work with people who will learn to know you. I recommend choosing them according to a few criteria:
* **Activities of a seemingly technical (or practical) nature**. As a PhD student, you probably don't want to be on boring committees, board-style meetings, interdepartmental seminars. You will meet people, but not in a way that fosters collaboration. (However, you may want to attend these events for other purposes. Meeting key people involved in hiring decisions at a given institution is one such purpose that comes to mind.)
* **Informal settings**. This favors meeting new people and getting to know them much better. Favor small meetings over big ones. Aim for a few persons you want to meet. Identify people you would like to approach (at a big event), then check what events they attend.
* **Manage to invite people for talks at your institution**. Okay, this one might be a bit difficult for a PhD student in some places, but if you can manage to get someone invited for a day or two, get him to give a talk and discuss your research and his, it will be worth it.
* **Do not shy away from “learning” events**: tutorials, “hands-on with XXX library” type of things.
All in all, I think the kind of events you want to engage in are:
* Open source projects: you listed that one already
* Workshops close to your research topic: these typically involve few people and long discussions. Many of my strongest collaborations (and a few friendships) grew out of workshops.
* Tutorials organized on topics related, but not too close, to your research: you will learn stuff, meet people in a relaxed setting. Don't be shy of going to workshops where you already know some of the stuff, if only to put it in practice and discuss with the best experts. Also, be ready to present your own work and identify convergences with lecturers and other participants.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You might consider engaging with scholars whose interests overlap yours via **digital arenas** as well. Although the degree to which people in a given field varies by specialty, I'd be surprised if there aren't at least a few people in your niche of information and CS who use informal digital spaces to share work in progress, ask each other questions, and communicate about opportunities such as conferences and grants. For example, you might explore:
* **Blogging and commenting on others' blogs**: Start writing short, regular posts about academic questions on your mind or scholarly endeavors on which you've been working. Do short reviews of interesting books and articles you've been reading, or use the space to be thoughtful about what it means to be a Ph.D. student in your field. Leave meaningful comments and questions on the blogs of others in your field, or respond to these posts with a blog post of your own (linking to the other person's post both as a matter of etiquette and because many bloggers automatically get trackback notifications of ho's been linking to their posts).
* **Using Twitter as a Scholar**: Twitter isn't just for sharing photos of what you ate for lunch! <NAME> provides [some excellent advice](https://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/how-to-start-tweeting-and-why-you-might-want-to/26065) on getting started using Twitter professionally and effectively. Use Twitter to share the links to those blog posts you've been writing (see previous bullet), cite intriguing articles you've been reading on the web, or ask questions of scholars whose work you admire. If your department doesn't have anyone already using Twitter for academic ends, you might try searching Twitter with some applicable hashtags (e.g. #computers? #infosci? some more specific terms?), following anyone who tweets about these topics and seems to be saying interesting things, and also check out who those people are themselves following. Many people use the Twitter setting that automatically notifies them when they have a new follower, so be sure to fill out your Twitter bio to create the professional impression you desire (e.g. what school are you at? what topics do you study?). Finally, consider asking interesting questions via Twitter and curating the responses via a service like Storify.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I am a biochem post-doc and just tried [projectnudge.com](http://www.projectnudge.com) for this exact situation. The site appears to be beta testing social science collaborations. I was told my posting will appear on the site soon when they start releasing the science collaboration proposals.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: In the humanities, at least, websites like [academia.edu](http://www.academia.edu) are useful for following research trends and for connecting (and "following") the work of others. I've found it especially useful both for meeting folks with similar interests, and, when I've presented in or organized panels at conferences, for putting a face to someone's name while also seeing what else they get into.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/10/07 | 1,157 | 4,931 | <issue_start>username_0: At what stage of research career one can write a 'review article'?
Obviously a graduate student in the beginning stages cannot/may not write one. But how experienced does one need to be before attempting to write reviews? Does authoring a number of papers in the relevant field equips one for that?
Can a graduate student publish a review article? Do acceptance of review article (for publication) depends on the reputation of the author or co-authors?
EDIT: As @JeffE has pointed out anyone can *write* a review article; the question is about getting this write-up published.<issue_comment>username_1: First, I'll remark that (at least in fields close to me: physics and chemistry), the process for submitting review articles is typically handled in a different way than other articles (which I'll call “research articles”). Review articles take a lot of effort to write, and that their publication may depend not only on intrinsic quality and scientific criteria, but also on editorial policy: if the journal has already hosted a review on a given topic, it is unlikely to publish another soon afterwards. So, the common practice is to come to an agreement with the editor before writing the full article. Either the editor contacts a scientist to offer him to write a review on a given topic, either an author sends an abstract to the editor asking if the journal would welcome such a review (with no guarantee as to the results of the peer-review process, of course).
This has an important consequence for your question: you can actually **ask the editor** of the journal of your dreams if a review by you and your co-authors would be welcome. Practices may differ between fields, journals and editors, but asking exactly the person who is going to make the decision is the right course.
Then, we come to what I would call the “customs”. It is indeed typical to gain some authority in your field before writing review articles. This usually means **working for a few years in a given field**, publishing some articles of your own, in short: getting noticed by your community. As such, it is not a typical thing to do for a graduate student. Maybe at the end of your PhD, jointly with your adviser. Most probably, later in your career: either as an experienced post-doc, or after having gained a faculty position.
With more than a few years of experience, my personal experience is that you perfectly write reviews (and the editors will accept if the work is good). However, **it gets easier with seniority**, as you will (i) more easily have your work accepted in more prestigious journals, and especially (ii) more easily get invitations to write reviews.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are a number of different types of "review articles."
There are book and "show" reviews, but I don't think this is what you mean. These can be written by anyone, but are often written by junior people who are willing to stick their necks out a little.
There are also systematic reviews in which the literature is search systematically and the quality of each piece of literature is assessed against a predetermined set of criteria. Systemic reviews often only focus on a handful of studies. If there are more studies a meta-analysis may be conducted. These again are written by people at all stages.
"Tutorial" reviews which attempts to summarize a large swath of research. A literature review in a thesis is a good example of this type of review. These types of reviews often are published as book chapters. Many are solicited by an editor, but some are submitted. Again people of all stages can publish these.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Obviously a graduate student in the beginning stages cannot/may not
> write one.
>
>
>
This is news to me, given my second paper was a review that appeared in a top ranked journal in my field. At the time, I was an *undergraduate* student.
>
> But how experienced does one need to be before attempting to write
> reviews? Does authoring a number of papers in the relevant field
> equips one for that?
>
>
>
Authoring a number of papers can help you develop a reputation, but *reading* a number of papers is how you understand the field as a whole. The process for the literature review chapter of a dissertation and the process for writing a review are very, very similar.
Similarly, there is no reason why a graduate student could not write a meta-analysis or systematic review. Indeed, in my graduate program, this was a common first or second paper.
>
> Can a graduate student publish a review article? Do acceptance of
> review article (for publication) depends on the reputation of the
> author or co-authors?
>
>
>
Often, review papers have to be invited, and this can depend on the reputation of a co-author, or an advisor that makes sure it makes its way to an editor's desk.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/10/07 | 1,143 | 4,879 | <issue_start>username_0: Of late I have been receiving a number of e-mails with subject 'Call for Paper' and invitations to contribute to new and/or open-access publications. While most of them immediately qualify for the trash bin, some do have a professional looking layout and language. Sometimes their publisher name looks very similar to reputed publishers.
Should I create a filter to delete and mark spam for all mails with 'Call for Paper' in the subject?
Do reputed publishers ever advertise or invite authors to contribute to their journals?<issue_comment>username_1: First, I'll remark that (at least in fields close to me: physics and chemistry), the process for submitting review articles is typically handled in a different way than other articles (which I'll call “research articles”). Review articles take a lot of effort to write, and that their publication may depend not only on intrinsic quality and scientific criteria, but also on editorial policy: if the journal has already hosted a review on a given topic, it is unlikely to publish another soon afterwards. So, the common practice is to come to an agreement with the editor before writing the full article. Either the editor contacts a scientist to offer him to write a review on a given topic, either an author sends an abstract to the editor asking if the journal would welcome such a review (with no guarantee as to the results of the peer-review process, of course).
This has an important consequence for your question: you can actually **ask the editor** of the journal of your dreams if a review by you and your co-authors would be welcome. Practices may differ between fields, journals and editors, but asking exactly the person who is going to make the decision is the right course.
Then, we come to what I would call the “customs”. It is indeed typical to gain some authority in your field before writing review articles. This usually means **working for a few years in a given field**, publishing some articles of your own, in short: getting noticed by your community. As such, it is not a typical thing to do for a graduate student. Maybe at the end of your PhD, jointly with your adviser. Most probably, later in your career: either as an experienced post-doc, or after having gained a faculty position.
With more than a few years of experience, my personal experience is that you perfectly write reviews (and the editors will accept if the work is good). However, **it gets easier with seniority**, as you will (i) more easily have your work accepted in more prestigious journals, and especially (ii) more easily get invitations to write reviews.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are a number of different types of "review articles."
There are book and "show" reviews, but I don't think this is what you mean. These can be written by anyone, but are often written by junior people who are willing to stick their necks out a little.
There are also systematic reviews in which the literature is search systematically and the quality of each piece of literature is assessed against a predetermined set of criteria. Systemic reviews often only focus on a handful of studies. If there are more studies a meta-analysis may be conducted. These again are written by people at all stages.
"Tutorial" reviews which attempts to summarize a large swath of research. A literature review in a thesis is a good example of this type of review. These types of reviews often are published as book chapters. Many are solicited by an editor, but some are submitted. Again people of all stages can publish these.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Obviously a graduate student in the beginning stages cannot/may not
> write one.
>
>
>
This is news to me, given my second paper was a review that appeared in a top ranked journal in my field. At the time, I was an *undergraduate* student.
>
> But how experienced does one need to be before attempting to write
> reviews? Does authoring a number of papers in the relevant field
> equips one for that?
>
>
>
Authoring a number of papers can help you develop a reputation, but *reading* a number of papers is how you understand the field as a whole. The process for the literature review chapter of a dissertation and the process for writing a review are very, very similar.
Similarly, there is no reason why a graduate student could not write a meta-analysis or systematic review. Indeed, in my graduate program, this was a common first or second paper.
>
> Can a graduate student publish a review article? Do acceptance of
> review article (for publication) depends on the reputation of the
> author or co-authors?
>
>
>
Often, review papers have to be invited, and this can depend on the reputation of a co-author, or an advisor that makes sure it makes its way to an editor's desk.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/10/07 | 1,114 | 4,721 | <issue_start>username_0: As we know, citation counts are important to judge one's research activity. Is it good to cite one's previous works? Will it be viewed as an act of advertisement or self-promotion?<issue_comment>username_1: Although it's true that citations are always helpful, there are obviously limits. If the *majority* of your citations are self-citations, that's usually considered a "red flag." If your paper that came out two years ago has 10 citations, and two or three are from within your group, nobody's really going to have a problem with that. But if your paper gets cited 45 times, and 40 of them are you citing yourself, that's not so good.
Citation counts not being "in sync" with the journals they're published in are also problematic. Publishing in no-name, third-tier journal X, your paper is probably unlikely to generate many citations. It looks suspicious when such papers get many citations.
But again, much of this can be sorted out by a judicious use of search tools like [Web of Science](http://www.isiknowledge.com) or [Scopus](http://www.scopus.com).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The ethical rule has to be: cite your work if it's relevant, and don't give it preferential treatment over the work of others. In short: **use the same criteria for previous references to your work as you would use for citing others**. No excessive citation, no self-censorship.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Citing your previous work can be both good and bad. The biggest benefit is it might make people more aware of your work and how it fits in with a bigger topic. The risk is that people do not understand the relevance and think you are self-promoting and therefore take a negative view of you.
The worst case of this is when a reviewer tells you to cite some piece of work. If it is a big laundry list of articles all by the same author, you tend to get a little angry and think the reviewer is trying to promote that author. If it is a single article that is obviously related and the reviewer clearly states that he/she is an author, I tend to be happy to cite it.
The question you need to ask is: are you citing the previous work to promote it or to help the reader.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As with all referencing, the referenced works must be pertinent to what is being described in the paper referencing them. If one writes about a specific topic where much of the work has been done by the same researcher or research group then self-citing will be quite common. There is of course a fine line between that and "self-promoting" self-citing. It is impossible to try to draw the line based on number or references or percentages of the total number of references. However, it is not common that most science in a field has been made by the same person so referencing own publications where they are only vaguely related is obviously not a good way.
Having many self-citations is clearly not a sign of widely spread science, either because it is not that interesting or because the field is very isolated (or very new). Citing ones own work will definitely become obvious when looking at the citations as you have done. The normal citation index or h-index obviously does not capture this although it is possible to calculate such indecees without self-citations. But as stated above a certain quantity of self-citation is inevitable since it is likely that one publication follows on many others from the same person or group. So self-citation is acceptable to a point. It becomes less and less acceptable when the reason for the citation is pogressievly less obvious and where other papers would be equally good (or better).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I think self-citation is not a bad practice in general, specially if you consider how most scientific branches work ("standing on the shoulders of giants", although you can also stand on the shoulders of normal-sized people, including yourself). However, there are two scenarios where self-citation or the lack of it can be seen as a bad practice:
1. **Superfluous self-citation**. (already discussed in previous answers). It refers to citing minutiae contained in your previous papers. For instance: "we consider the change of variable $y=x^2$ as in myself (1974,1975,1977,...,2012)"
2. **Not using self-citation in order to inflate your results**. Sometimes not citing your previous papers can produce a beneficial result. I have seen some researchers publishing a good/decent result, followed by a sequence of clones and mutant papers that do not cite the big one. This, of course, has a good effect on the child papers since it makes them look more original.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/10/08 | 1,129 | 4,843 | <issue_start>username_0: As different journals and Conference proceedings have different reference styles, it is very much important to quickly identify the specific reference style they prefer.
To do this, is there any reference style analyzer which can analyze a given example reference style and give the name of the style?<issue_comment>username_1: Although it's true that citations are always helpful, there are obviously limits. If the *majority* of your citations are self-citations, that's usually considered a "red flag." If your paper that came out two years ago has 10 citations, and two or three are from within your group, nobody's really going to have a problem with that. But if your paper gets cited 45 times, and 40 of them are you citing yourself, that's not so good.
Citation counts not being "in sync" with the journals they're published in are also problematic. Publishing in no-name, third-tier journal X, your paper is probably unlikely to generate many citations. It looks suspicious when such papers get many citations.
But again, much of this can be sorted out by a judicious use of search tools like [Web of Science](http://www.isiknowledge.com) or [Scopus](http://www.scopus.com).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The ethical rule has to be: cite your work if it's relevant, and don't give it preferential treatment over the work of others. In short: **use the same criteria for previous references to your work as you would use for citing others**. No excessive citation, no self-censorship.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Citing your previous work can be both good and bad. The biggest benefit is it might make people more aware of your work and how it fits in with a bigger topic. The risk is that people do not understand the relevance and think you are self-promoting and therefore take a negative view of you.
The worst case of this is when a reviewer tells you to cite some piece of work. If it is a big laundry list of articles all by the same author, you tend to get a little angry and think the reviewer is trying to promote that author. If it is a single article that is obviously related and the reviewer clearly states that he/she is an author, I tend to be happy to cite it.
The question you need to ask is: are you citing the previous work to promote it or to help the reader.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As with all referencing, the referenced works must be pertinent to what is being described in the paper referencing them. If one writes about a specific topic where much of the work has been done by the same researcher or research group then self-citing will be quite common. There is of course a fine line between that and "self-promoting" self-citing. It is impossible to try to draw the line based on number or references or percentages of the total number of references. However, it is not common that most science in a field has been made by the same person so referencing own publications where they are only vaguely related is obviously not a good way.
Having many self-citations is clearly not a sign of widely spread science, either because it is not that interesting or because the field is very isolated (or very new). Citing ones own work will definitely become obvious when looking at the citations as you have done. The normal citation index or h-index obviously does not capture this although it is possible to calculate such indecees without self-citations. But as stated above a certain quantity of self-citation is inevitable since it is likely that one publication follows on many others from the same person or group. So self-citation is acceptable to a point. It becomes less and less acceptable when the reason for the citation is pogressievly less obvious and where other papers would be equally good (or better).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I think self-citation is not a bad practice in general, specially if you consider how most scientific branches work ("standing on the shoulders of giants", although you can also stand on the shoulders of normal-sized people, including yourself). However, there are two scenarios where self-citation or the lack of it can be seen as a bad practice:
1. **Superfluous self-citation**. (already discussed in previous answers). It refers to citing minutiae contained in your previous papers. For instance: "we consider the change of variable $y=x^2$ as in myself (1974,1975,1977,...,2012)"
2. **Not using self-citation in order to inflate your results**. Sometimes not citing your previous papers can produce a beneficial result. I have seen some researchers publishing a good/decent result, followed by a sequence of clones and mutant papers that do not cite the big one. This, of course, has a good effect on the child papers since it makes them look more original.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/10/08 | 518 | 2,178 | <issue_start>username_0: During coursework, there are sessions where a problem set is distributed beforehand and a TA works out the solutions in front of the class in a stipulated session.
Given the student works out the problems himself and is confident of the material being covered, is it alright to skip such sessions? Is this viewed adversely during grading, etc?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, skipping the sessions is not only alright, but is in fact advisable. Will it be viewed adversely during grading, you bet yeah. The key thing to remember is that in grad school grades don't matter. If skipping the session means you can put an extra hour into your research, then that is better time spent.
The way it will affect you in grading is you might lose some participation points and the benefit of the doubt for borderline grades. The instructor may be less inclined to write you a letter of recommendation, but ideally your letter writers will be talking about your research.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: *“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.”*
Yes, you should do your best to maximize your gain from grad school, including skipping sessions/lectures which are not profitable, unless it is explicitly against the rules (in some institutions, there are mandatory lectures). If that means you skip some lectures, do it. If asked, be polite but direct about it. Some people will take it badly, most probably won't.
---
I'll reinforce my (and Daniel’s) answer with an anecdote: as a student, the department head welcomed us at the beginning of my first year. He said his institution was a place of science, not of conventions, and independence of great minds mattered above all. “Some people learn best in books, in chats with researchers… not by sleeping in lecture rooms. That's okay.” — Two months later, I went to him a morning because I needed his signature on an application. He gave me hell because I dared skip *his own* coursework session, which was happening at the same time with a TA from his group.
So, you can skip lectures, you don't have to try to hide it, but don't rub it in either :)
Upvotes: 2 |
Subsets and Splits